2019 (4) TMI 2077 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds deposit requirement for suspension of sentence under Section 148 NI Act.

Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Versus Virender Gandhi And Ors.

The court dismissed the petitions challenging the requirement to deposit 20/25% of the compensation amount for suspension of sentence under Section 148 of ... Dishonor of cheque - initial complaint was filed on 15.06.2015 and the amendment had taken place on 02.08.2018, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2018 - direction to deposit 20/25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court while suspending their sentence during pendency of the appeal(s) in view of the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 - HELD THAT:- A coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.9872 of 2018, titled as M/s Ginni Garments and another Versus M/s Sethi Garments [2019 (4) TMI 1248 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 143-A and Section 148 of the Amendment Act, 2018, held that Trial Courts, directing the accused to deposit up to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation; are challenged, are allowed. Consequently, the Orders challenged in those petitions are set-aside. The point involved in the present case(s) has already been decided and the same is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in M/s Ginni Garments - petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 to cases where the complaint was filed before the amendment came into force.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 148 of the Amendment Act, 2018:Background and Facts:The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which directed the petitioners to deposit 20/25% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court while suspending their sentence during the pendency of their appeals. The facts were drawn from CRM-M-3377-2019, where the petitioners, partners in a firm, had issued a cheque to the respondent/complainant, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court found the petitioners guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine.Trial Court and Appellate Court Orders:The trial court, after due procedure, concluded that the cheque was issued to discharge a legal and enforceable liability and found the petitioners guilty. The petitioners appealed and sought suspension of their sentence, which the Additional Sessions Judge granted, subject to the deposit of 25% of the compensation amount.Contentions:The petitioners contended that the requirement to deposit 25% of the compensation as a pre-condition for suspension of the sentence was not legally sustainable since the complaint was filed before the amendment came into force. They argued that the amendment, being penal and substantive in nature, could not be applied retrospectively.Respondents' Argument:The respondents argued that the Additional Sessions Judge rightly imposed the condition in view of Section 148 of the Amendment Act, 2018, as the conviction, sentence, and appeal all occurred after the amendment came into force.Court's Analysis and Judgment:The court examined whether Section 148 of the Amendment Act, 2018, was applicable to cases where the initial complaint was filed before the amendment. The court referred to the Amendment Act, which allows the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.Precedent:A coordinate bench in CRR No.9872 of 2018 (M/s Ginni Garments and another vs. M/s Sethi Garments) had addressed a similar issue, concluding that Section 148, being procedural, applies to all appeals pending on the date of enforcement or filed thereafter. The court held that the provision for recovery of fine or compensation already existed, and Section 148 merely modified this procedure favorably for the appellant, making it procedural rather than substantive.Conclusion:The court dismissed all the petitions, affirming that the point involved had already been decided in M/s Ginni Garments (supra). The court upheld the orders directing the deposit of 20% or more of the compensation amount, finding no fault with the Additional Sessions Judge's exercise of discretion.Order:All petitions were dismissed, and the orders challenged were upheld.