Court affirms deposit condition for appeal, citing retrospective application of N.I. Act Section 148.

The court upheld the Sessions Court's order directing the deposit of 30% of the compensation amount, modifying the terminology from "cheque amount." The court held that the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act applies retrospectively to ensure timely resolution in dishonor cases. The applicant's argument against the deposit condition for appeal under Cr.P.C. Section 374 was rejected, citing legislative intent and precedent. The application was disposed of with the modification, emphasizing the purposeful application of the amended provision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside the conditional order of deposit passed by the Sessions Court.
2. Applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) to cases filed before its amendment on 01.09.2018.
3. Interpretation and retrospective application of Section 148 of the N.I. Act.
4. Right to appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and its conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing and Setting Aside the Conditional Order of Deposit:
The applicant, the original accused, sought to quash the order dated 25.02.2019 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, which required the applicant to deposit 30% of the cheque amount as a condition for suspending the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The applicant argued that this condition caused undue hardship and restricted his substantive right to appeal. The Sessions Court had imposed this condition while allowing the suspension of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

2. Applicability of Section 148 of the N.I. Act to Pre-Amendment Cases:
The applicant contended that Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which mandates the deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, should not apply to cases filed before its amendment on 01.09.2018. The criminal case against the applicant was instituted in 2016, and thus, the applicant argued that the amended provision should not be applicable retrospectively.

3. Interpretation and Retrospective Application of Section 148 of the N.I. Act:
The court examined whether Section 148 of the N.I. Act should have retrospective effect. The court noted that the provision was introduced to address undue delays in cheque dishonor cases and to prevent unscrupulous drawers from exploiting the legal system by filing frivolous appeals. The court held that the amendment should apply to all pending cases, regardless of when the complaint was filed, to fulfill the legislative intent of ensuring timely resolution and justice for the payees of dishonored cheques.

4. Right to Appeal Under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. and Its Conditions:
The applicant emphasized that the right to appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is a substantive right and should not be restricted by conditions such as the deposit of a portion of the cheque amount. The court, however, referred to precedents and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment, concluding that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court was in line with the legislative intent and did not infringe upon the applicant's right to appeal. The court also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, which supported the applicability of Section 148 to pending appeals.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the applicant's contentions and upheld the Sessions Court's order directing the deposit of 30% of the cheque amount. However, it modified the terminology used in the order to specify "compensation" instead of "cheque amount." The application was disposed of with this modification, and the rule was discharged. The court emphasized that the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act should be applied purposively to ensure justice and prevent misuse of the legal process by drawers of dishonored cheques.

---