TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is that the respondent No.1 had borrowed certain sums of money from the petitioner from time to time and in discharge of the debt, the respondent No.1 had issued a cheque dated 30.07.2015 for a sum of Rs. 7,57,640/-. This cheque being presented for realization was returned on the ground that the balance in the account was insufficient. The petitioner thereupon filed a complaint against the respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The concerned Magistrate conducted a trial during which the respondent No.1 disputed his guilt, however, did not dispute his signature on the cheque. The learned Magistrate decided the criminal case by a judgment dated 12.02.2020 by which the respondent No.1 original accused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd (iii) The Court has also passed an order suspending the sentence and any such direction for depositing 20% of the fine amount would amount to review of such order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.05 of 2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajib Saha submitted that there was no delay on part of the petitioner in moving the application for depositing the amount. The learned Judge committed a serious error in rejecting such application on this ground. He further submitted that merely because the appeal was ripe for hearing, would not be a ground for refusing to exercise power under Section 148 of the Act. He lastly pointed out that the order for suspension of sentence was passed without a notice to the petitioner. He dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Negotiable Instruments Act on 17.11.2020, his approach cannot be stated to be lethargic. 7. The appeal was admitted ex parte so was the request for suspension of sentence granted, both on the same day. Surely the petitioner the complainant of a cheque bouncing, cannot be deprived of the benefit of a statutory provision on account of admission of the appeal and suspension of the sentence without hearing the complainant. 8. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was inserted w.e.f. 01.09.2018 and reads as under: "148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against convictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition to any interim compensation which may have been paid under Section 143-A which is the power of the trial Court. As per sub-section (2) of Section 148 the amount would be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order unless extended by the Court up to a maximum of thirty days. The appellate Court may also release the amount in favour of the drawee of the cheque pending the appeal. 10. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner this provision came up for consideration before Supreme Court in case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra). In the context of the use of the word "may" in sub-section (1), the Supreme Court had made following observations: "9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Appellants that even cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat as per the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the Appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, but also Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt making out a prima facie case. The direction for depositing the amount in terms of subsection (1) of Section 148 would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court in case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) has stressed upon the requirement of giving purposive interpretation to the said provision utilizing the powers to ensure that there is no dilatory tactic employed by the drawer of the cheque. Even if the Supreme Court has not gone to the extent of holding that the word "may" used in sub-section (1) of Section 148 would be read as "shall", nevertheless there is a clear intention discernible in the judgment of the Supreme Court that such provision should be utilized in appropriate cases. 12. Merely because the Co....