Section 148 deposit adjustment and bail cancellation under cheque dishonour law: prior recovery may be set off, but bail is not automatically cancelled.

In an appeal arising from conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court examined whether amounts already recovered in SARFAESI proceedings could be adjusted against the deposit directed under Section 148, and held that such adjustment is permissible where the recoveries relate to the same underlying liability, so as to avoid double recovery. It also clarified that non-deposit of the Section 148 amount does not automatically or consequentially cancel bail, because the Act contains no express provision creating that consequence and default only permits recovery through the statutory mechanism. The challenge was therefore allowed and the impugned directions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the amount already recovered in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 can be adjusted against the deposit directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether non-deposit of the amount directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 results in automatic or consequential cancellation of bail.

Issue (i): Whether, in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the amount already recovered in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 can be adjusted against the deposit directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The statutory scheme introduced by Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was examined along with Sections 357 and 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provisions show that interim compensation and compensation are intended to secure recovery of part of the cheque amount, but they do not contain any prohibition against accounting for amounts already realised in connected proceedings. Where parallel proceedings concern the same or interlinked liability, the amount recovered in one proceeding may be adjusted in the other to prevent a person from being compelled to pay more than what is due. The legislative object is speedy recovery, not duplication of recovery or an inequitable windfall.

Conclusion: The adjustment was permissible, and the issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether non-deposit of the amount directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 results in automatic or consequential cancellation of bail.

Analysis: The text of Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not provide that default in deposit automatically cancels bail. Default may justify recovery by the statutory mode, but the Act does not create an ipso facto consequence of bail cancellation. Since the offence under Section 138 is bailable and no specific statutory mandate for automatic cancellation exists, such a consequence cannot be read into the provision.

Conclusion: Non-deposit does not automatically or consequentially cancel bail, and the issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the directions under appeal were set aside, the amount recovered under the SARFAESI proceedings was treated as adjusted towards the deposit under Section 148, and the appeal was left to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two proceedings relate to the same underlying liability, amounts already realised in one proceeding may be adjusted against a deposit ordered in the other, and a consequence as serious as automatic cancellation of bail cannot be imposed without express statutory authority.

---