TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court was justified in cancelling the bail granted under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for non-deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within the stipulated time. (ii) Whether the condition requiring deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed as unreasonable.
Issue (i): Whether the appellate court was justified in cancelling the bail granted under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for non-deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within the stipulated time.
Analysis: The condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was imposed while granting bail in appeal. The amount was not deposited within 60 days, and even after a substantial lapse of time thereafter the default continued. The decision relied on the principle that where suspension of sentence or bail is granted subject to a statutory condition, non-compliance with that condition entitles the appellate court to treat the relief as having been vacated or to cancel it. The earlier view relied upon by the petitioners was treated as no longer governing in light of the later binding position recognising the appellate court's power to act on non-compliance.
Conclusion: The cancellation of bail for non-compliance was held to be justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed as unreasonable.
Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, authorises the appellate court to direct deposit of a portion of the compensation or fine in an appeal against conviction under Section 138. Since the appeal in the present matter was filed after the amendment came into force, the statutory condition was directly applicable. The court held that the requirement could not be characterised as unreasonable in the circumstances and did not warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The deposit condition was upheld and the prayer to quash it failed.
Final Conclusion: The petitions failed in full, as the statutory deposit condition under Section 148 operated against the petitioners and the resulting cancellation of bail was found lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: When bail or suspension of sentence is granted subject to a statutory deposit condition under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, non-compliance with that condition permits the appellate court to vacate or cancel the relief, and the condition itself is enforceable in appeals governed by the amended provision.
TaxTMI 
