Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 28554
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL, J
RAMSWAROOP S/O SHRI SOHANLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP / 6827 / 2023
The Appellate Court's discretion to impose a deposit condition under Section 148 of the NI Act is valid unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the appellant.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 148 - Quashing of order staying conviction and punishment - Appellate Court directed accused-petitioner to deposit 20% of compensation amount, which was deemed discretionary - Court found that the Appellate Court acted within its jurisdiction and balanced equities, allowing for refund if acquitted - Exceptional circumstances not proven by petitioner. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Right to Appeal - The court emphasized that the imposition of a deposit condition should not deprive the appellant of their right to appeal unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner sought to quash the order of the Appellate Court that stayed his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, contingent upon depositing 20% of the compensation amount. The petitioner argued that this order infringed upon his right to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Appellate Court acted within its jurisdiction, balancing the equities involved, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting exemption from the deposit.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Appellate Court had improperly exercised its discretion in imposing a deposit condition under Section 148 of the NI Act, potentially infringing on the petitioner’s right to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Appellate Court's order was justified under Section 148 of the NI Act and that the imposition of a deposit condition is permissible unless exceptional circumstances are proven by the appellant.
Result: Miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
Order
12/01/2024
1. Accused-petitioner has preferred these Criminal Misc. Petitions seeking quashing of order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Addl. Session Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar staying the conviction and punishment of petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act subject to deposition of 20% of the compensation amount through demand draft in the name of the complainant.
2. Counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the power of Appellate Court directing the accused-petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation amount under Section 148 NI Act is discretionary and the Appellate Court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction, which amounts to deprivation of the petitioner right of his appeal.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) SCC 446 .
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. From perusal of the Section 148 of NI Act, this Court finds that the Appellate Court has acted well within its jurisdiction to stay the order of impugned judgment of conviction and punishment passed against the petitioner subject to deposit 20% of the compensation amount by demand draft to the complainant. The Appellate Court has also balanced the equities while passing the order impugned that in the case of petitioner succeeds in the appeal and is acquitted, the amount shall be refunded by the complainant.
6. In Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), Supreme Court has observed in Para No.6 which reads as under:-
“What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the NI Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.”
7. Petitioner has not been able to prove any exceptional circumstances either before the Appellate Court or before this Court to grant exemption from deposition of 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section 148 NI Act.
8. In such fact, the afore-discussed proposition of Law is not been applicable to the present case, the impugned order thus does not call for any interference.
9. Accordingly, these misc. petitions are dismissed.
10. Stay applications stand disposed.
11. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
