https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419646 In an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 148 was construed purposively to require the Appellate Court to direct deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation. Although the provision uses the word "may", the non obstante clause, the minimum-deposit threshold, and the object of discouraging delay in cheque dishonour litigation made the requirement mandatory in substance. The court held that treating the provision as wholly discretionary would defeat its legislative purpose and the protection intended for the complainant during the appeal. The deposit direction was therefore upheld, and the challenge to it failed. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2022 10:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419646 In an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 148 was construed purposively to require the Appellate Court to direct deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation. Although the provision uses the word "may", the non obstante clause, the minimum-deposit threshold, and the object of discouraging delay in cheque dishonour litigation made the requirement mandatory in substance. The court held that treating the provision as wholly discretionary would defeat its legislative purpose and the protection intended for the complainant during the appeal. The deposit direction was therefore upheld, and the challenge to it failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419646