Court extends time for compensation deposit, modifies conditions, and sets aside bail cancellation.

The court modified the orders directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total compensation amount within 90 days, extending the time due to ongoing litigation. It was further ordered that if the amount was not deposited within 90 days, the petitioner would have to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the order, if the conviction was maintained. The conditions of cancellation of bail or suspension of the sentence in the event of non-payment were set aside, and the writ petitions were partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality and validity of the orders directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition for bail or to entertain the appeal.
2. Retrospective application of Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Right to appeal and bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Conditions imposed on bail and their impact on the liberty of the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Orders:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 3.8.2018, which directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition for bail or to entertain the appeal. The appellate court had directed the accused to deposit 25% of the total compensation, failing which the suspension of the sentence would be vacated. The petitioner argued that this condition deprived him of his right to appeal and bail, which should be unconditional.

2. Retrospective Application of Sections 143A and 148:
The petitioner contended that Sections 143A and 148, which were enacted on 12.8.2018 and came into effect from 1.9.2018, could not be applied retrospectively to cases where the offense was committed, and the complaint was filed before these provisions came into existence. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Anil Kumar Goel vs. Kishan Chand Kaura, which held that laws affecting substantive rights generally operate prospectively unless the legislative intent is clear and compelling.

The court, however, held that the provisions could be applied to cases pending in trial and appellate courts after 1.9.2018. It was stated that the Legislature introduced these amendments to address undue delays in cheque dishonor cases and to provide timely relief to payees, thus strengthening the credibility of cheques and aiding trade and commerce.

3. Right to Appeal and Bail under Article 21:
The petitioner argued that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The imposition of conditions that could lead to the cancellation of bail or suspension of the sentence if the compensation was not paid was contended to be unjust and against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The court referred to the landmark case of Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & anr., where it was held that the right to appeal is a substantive right and cannot be interfered with or impaired by imposing unreasonable conditions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right of an accused should be protected, and any conditions imposed should be reasonable and not harsh.

4. Conditions Imposed on Bail and Their Impact on the Liberty of the Accused:
The court analyzed Sections 143A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, comparing the provisions for interim compensation during trial and the appellate stage. It was noted that Section 143A allows for interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount, while Section 148 allows the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.

The court held that imposing a condition of cancellation of bail or suspension of the sentence for non-payment of compensation was unjust and illegal. It was emphasized that the accused's liberty should not be curtailed by such conditions, and the amount of compensation should be recoverable through the procedures laid down under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion:
The court modified the orders dated 24.9.2018, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total compensation amount within 90 days, extending the stipulated time due to ongoing litigation. It was further ordered that if the amount was not deposited within 90 days, the petitioner would have to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the order, if the conviction was maintained. The conditions of cancellation of bail or suspension of the sentence in the event of non-payment were set aside, and the writ petitions were partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---