2022 (7) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Order under Negotiable Instruments Act deemed interlocutory, petitioner advised to seek relief under Criminal Procedure Code

The court held that the order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding suspension of sentence and bail conditions, is ... Dishonor of Cheque - quantum of compensation amount - case of complainant is that inasmuch as Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lays down that 20% of the compensation/fine amount has to be deposited, while in the instant case, double the cheque amount has been ordered as compensation - HELD THAT:- The bar in sub-section (2) of Section 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the purposes of Article 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory orders within the meaning of Section 397(2). It is neither advisable, nor possible, to make a catalogue of orders to demonstrate which kinds of orders would be merely, purely or simply interlocutory and which kinds of orders would be final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types of orders which will fall in between the two. The first two kinds are well-known and can be culled out from many decided cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the issue and laid down tests characterise whether an order is interlocutory order or not. In Hasmukh A. Jahveri Vs. Shella Dadlani [1980 (9) TMI 293 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the meaning of the term “interlocutory order” is not always converse of the term “final order” and held that an order determining important rights and liabilities cannot be termed as interlocutory. Applying the tests to the power exercisable under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is not a pre-condition in the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order of deciding the appeal. Applying the test of deciding the rights of the parties, it has been held that it is only a direction to deposit, subject to the final outcome in the appeal and therefore is only a matter of procedure without finally determining the rights of parties. Applying the test as to whether non-passing of such order or accepting of any plea by the accused or the complainant, whether it would result in culmination of proceedings, the answer is again in the negative - Therefore, applying any of the tests advocated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, still the order, which is passed in exercise of power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is neither a final order nor an intermediate order so as to hold that the revision as against the same is maintainable. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MADHU LIMAYE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable. Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Suspension of sentence and bail conditions under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Maintainability of revision against an interlocutory order.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The respondent was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to six months of Simple Imprisonment. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay double the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Suspension of Sentence and Bail Conditions under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:Upon appeal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, suspended the sentence and granted bail, requiring the respondent to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and deposit 15% of the cheque amount (Rs.3,18,000/-) within 60 days. The complainant challenged this order, arguing that Section 148 mandates a deposit of 20% of the compensation/fine amount, which in this case should be Rs.8,64,000/-.3. Maintainability of Revision Against an Interlocutory Order:The primary legal contention was whether the order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is interlocutory and if a revision against it is maintainable. The complainant's counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal, emphasizing that the deposit under Section 148 is mandatory and should be 20% of the compensation amount. Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that the order is interlocutory, referencing judgments from the Kerala High Court and Madras High Court, which held that such orders are interlocutory and not subject to revision.The court examined the nature of interlocutory orders, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguished between final and interlocutory orders. The court noted that an order affecting the rights of the parties or determining important rights and liabilities is not merely interlocutory. However, it concluded that the order under Section 148, being procedural and not determining final rights, is interlocutory.The court also referenced the purpose of Section 148, which is to prevent delay tactics by convicted individuals and ensure the payment of compensation. It reiterated that the order for deposit under Section 148 is procedural and does not affect the final outcome of the appeal.Conclusion:The court held that the order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is interlocutory and thus, the revision is not maintainable. The petitioner was given the liberty to approach the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if desired. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the related petition was closed.