2022 (5) TMI 71 - HC - Indian Laws

Deposit 20% of compensation for appeal suspension upheld under Section 148

The court upheld the legality of the precondition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount for suspension of sentence during the appeal under Section 148 ... Maintainability of petition - Dishonor of Cheque - direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal - applicability of section 148 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/s Ginni Garments and another Versus M/s Sethi Garments and another [2019 (4) TMI 1248 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that All the petitions, wherein the order of the Trial Courts, directing the accused to deposit up to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation; are challenged, are allowed. Thus, it is clearly established that the pre-condition as imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, Amritsar, cannot be found fault with, being legal and in consonance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the precondition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount for suspension of sentence during the appeal under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of the Precondition to Deposit 20% of the Compensation Amount for Suspension of Sentence During the Appeal Under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum. In default of payment, an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment was imposed.The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. and sought suspension of the sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, ordered the suspension of the sentence on the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the compensation amount within 15 days, as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the requirement to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was illegal and that the court had wrongly assumed the amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act was mandatory.The court referred to the precedent set in M/s Ginni Garments and another Versus M/s Sethi Garments and another, 2019(2) RCR (Criminal) 833, which clarified that the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced by Amendment No.20 of 2018, are procedural and applicable to all pending appeals, even those arising from complaints filed before the amendment. The court emphasized that this provision does not create a new obligation but modifies the existing procedure for recovery of compensation, making it more favorable for the appellant compared to pre-existing provisions under Sections 421 and 424 of the Cr.P.C.The court also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi, which upheld the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to pending appeals, emphasizing that the provision aims to prevent delay tactics by unscrupulous drawers of dishonored cheques and to ensure speedy disposal of cases.The court concluded that the precondition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was legal and in consonance with Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.