<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (9) TMI 1301 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285460</link>
    <description>While suspending sentence in an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court may validly impose the statutory deposit condition under amended Section 148, including a direction to deposit a minimum percentage of the compensation amount. The text notes that this condition was treated as enforceable even in pending appeals, and that non-compliance with the deposit direction, along with non-appearance before the appellate court, justified cancellation of the suspension of sentence. A challenge that recovery must await separate execution proceedings was rejected, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1301 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285460</link>
      <description>While suspending sentence in an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court may validly impose the statutory deposit condition under amended Section 148, including a direction to deposit a minimum percentage of the compensation amount. The text notes that this condition was treated as enforceable even in pending appeals, and that non-compliance with the deposit direction, along with non-appearance before the appellate court, justified cancellation of the suspension of sentence. A challenge that recovery must await separate execution proceedings was rejected, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>