TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are corresponding to the subject matter of other three quashing petitions i.e. CRM-M-41226- 2019, CRM-M-41261-2019, and CRM-M-41847-2019, filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.5.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby a condition was imposed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The total compensation amount in all these three similar cases comes to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- approximately and all the three orders have been passed on 23.5.2019. For the sake of convenience, the anticipatory bail petition i.e. CRM-M-3833-2021 and quashing petition i.e. CRM-M-41487-2019, are taken up for describing the facts of the case. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act on 29.3.2019 for a period of one year and was also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 37,50,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad and vide order dated 23.5.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to the surety be issued for 4.2.2021 The aforesaid order was passed on 12.1.2021 and the warrants of arrest were issued for 4.2.2021. The petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. vide CRM-M-3833 of 2021. This petition for anticipatory bail came up for hearing before this Court on 28.1.2021 and the learned counsel for the petitioners made a request for an adjournment and consequently it was adjourned to 2.2.2021. On this date i.e. on 2.2.2021, the lawyers were abstaining from work and the petitioner appeared in person through video conference and apprised this Court that warrants have been issued for 4.2.2021 and the petitioner further submitted that his case is covered by a judgment passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court in Vivek Sahni and another Vs.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2019 (4) RCR (Crl.) 614 stating that once bail has been granted by the learned Appellate Court under the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, the same cannot be cancelled on the ground of non-payment of 20% of the compensation amount. Petitioner further submitted that 20% of compensation amount in all the three cases comes to Rs. 21 lacs o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory provisions for suspension of sentence as contained under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. It was concluded that the orders passed by the learned appellate Court while cancelling suspension of sentence on account of their failure to deposit 25% of compensation amount, are perfectly legal and justified and they do not warrant any interefence by this Court by entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court was assailed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.1936- 1963 of 2019 decided on 8.1.2020, Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi and Ors., in Crimiinal, AIR 2020 SC 415, equivalent to 2020 (2) SCC Page 514, in which it has been observed that the High Court was right in its opinion that question No.2 as framed in Vivek Sahni's case (supra) was not correctly considered and that it was for the appellate Court who has granted suspension of sentence to take call regarding noncompliance and take appropriate decision. Further, it was observed that noncompliance of the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare the order of suspension of sentence having been vacated. The relevant portion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expired on 22.7.2019 and more than 1½ years have lapsed thereafter, but the amount was not deposited by the petitioners and therefore, the learned Appellate Court was justified in cancelling the bail of the petitioner. He further submitted that a perusal of the order dated 23.5.2019, would show that the bail was granted subject to the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount and the condition has been clearly violated by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that so far as other petition pertaining to quashing of the condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court for deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is concerned, the same is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that such a condition cannot be described as unreasonable condition in view of the statutory provisions contained under Section 148 of the Act which was inserted by way of amendment which came into force on 1.9.2018 and the present appeal was filed in the year 2019 and therefore, the provisions of Section 148 of the Act are directly applicable to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon another judgment of the H....