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 interlocutory, making revision not maintainable. The petitioner was granted the option to seek relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the associated petition was closed.

---

---

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.

---