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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence in a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without complying with the statutory deposit requirement under Section 148 of that Act.
Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation ordinarily mandatory in an appeal against conviction under Section 138. Waiver of deposit is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, and reasons must be recorded for granting such exemption. The petitioner did not deposit any amount despite repeated opportunities before the appellate court and before this Court, and his asserted financial incapacity was found inconsistent with his earlier conduct indicating willingness to pay substantial amounts and to settle the matter. No exceptional circumstance or patent illegality in the concurrent findings of conviction was shown to justify dispensing with the statutory condition.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to suspension of sentence without complying with the deposit requirement, and the applications were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal or revisional challenge to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, suspension of sentence is ordinarily conditioned on deposit under Section 148, and exemption can be granted only on a reasoned finding of exceptional circumstances.