TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruary 2020 passed below Exh.-4, the Appellate Court while suspending sentence imposed upon the respondent No.2/original accused and granting him bail, has directed him to deposit 25% of total compensation awarded by the Trial Court within a period of 60 days from the date of the passing of the said Order and if the respondent fails to deposit the said amount within stipulated period, it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. Parties herein will be hereinafter referred to as per their original nomenclature before the Trial Court. The petitioner 'Habib' will be termed as 'complainant' and respondent 'Altaf' will be termed as 'accused'. 3. The Writ Petition (St.) No.7963 of 2020 is filed by original accused in S.C.C. No. 589 OF 2010, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I. Act"). The accused has impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.-20 in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2020, allowing the said Application preferred by complainant for release of amount of Rs. 47,07,500/- deposited by the accused in furtherance of Order dated 27th February 2020 passed below Exh.-4 by the same Court. 4. Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Order. The said Order is impugned herein in Writ Petition (St.) No.4770 of 2020. The complainant also filed an Application below Exh.-20 for release of the said amount of Rs. 47,07,500/- deposited by the accused in furtherance of Order passed below Exh.-4. The Appellate Court by its separate Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.-20 allowed the said Application and directed the complainant to execute indemnity bond of Rs. 5,000/- with usual conditions incorporated therein. The accused has impugned the said Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.-20 in Writ Petition (St.) No.7963 of 2020. The aforestated are the basic admitted facts on record in both the Petitions herein. 8. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, it took about 10 years for the complainant to get the said complaint bearing S.C.C. No. 589 of 2010 decided from the Trial Court. He submitted that, the accused is successful in protracting the said proceedings for more than nine and half years. That, in Special Leave to Appeal No.7589 of 2018 preferred by the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Trial Court to decide the said complaint within a period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the delay in conducting trial. She submitted that, the complainant is also responsible for the same. She submitted that, merely because the complaint was decided after a lapse of about 10 years, itself can not be a ground for directing the accused to deposit more compensation than what has been directed by the Appellate Court. While impugning Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.-20, she submitted that, the Appellate Court ought not have released the said amount in favour of the complainant as it was deposited during the pendency of Appeal. She submitted that, the Appellate Court ought to have imposed strict conditions upon the complainant while releasing the said amount in his favour and therefore, the said impugned Order may be set aside and the complainant may not be permitted to withdraw the said amount. She therefore prayed that, the Petition filed by the complainant be dismissed and the Petition filed by the accused may be allowed. 10. Perusal of record indicates that, the accused on earlier five occasions had approached this Court. He had also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on three occasions. That, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 13th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount as per directions of the trial Court to the complainant in lump-sum and to put an end to the entire litigation by compounding the offence or (ii) to give a bank guarantee for the said amount of Rs. 1,88,30,000/- for a period of 9 to 12 months and this Court will direct the Appellate Court to decide the Appeal finally within the same stipulated period. The accused through his learned counsel expressed his inability to accept the said suggestions by giving lame excuses and for inappreciable grounds which are not commensurate with the facts of present case. 13. The conduct of the accused clearly indicates that, he is intending to procrastinate the litigation. As of today, the accused is a convict and his sentence has been suspended by the Order dated 27th February 2020 passed below Exh.-4 by the Appellate Court. It is also a fact on record that, the accused as of today is successful in protracting the trial for more than 9 and half years and the complainant is the ultimate sufferer for the same. 14. Section 143 of the N.I. Act deals with power of Court to try cases summarily and states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all off....