TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Babita Sharma and another' on 06.01.2022. He was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence under Sections Sentence RI Compensation amount to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. RI in default of payment of compensation 138 N.I. Act One Year Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum Two Months The appellant (petitioner herein) filed an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the said judgment dated 01.01.2022. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner (appellant therein) moved an application seeking suspension of sentence. The Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2022 ordered that the operation of the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant would remain suspended subject to the appellant's furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within 15 days from that date and subject to the further condition that in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant (petitioner herein) would deposit 20% of the amount of the compensation imposed by the Trial Court within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. It is the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at the outset is that the Orders impugned in these petitions have been passed by the Courts below by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 143-A of the Act during the trial, and under Section 148 of the Act during the pendency of appeal. Both these sections were not in existence in the Act earlier. Both these sections were added vide Amendment No.20 of 2018. In none of the petitions, the vires of these provisions are under challenge. Hence, this Court is proceeding on the presumption that the sections introduced by the Amendment Act, are validly operating law. 5. The only challenge raised by the respective petitioners, in all these petitions, is that since the Amendment Act has been enforced with effect from 02.08.2018, therefore, these provisions cannot be made applicable to the cases, where the trials for offence under Section 138 of the Act were already pending or where the appeals have arisen from such trials, which were pending on the date of the enforcement of these provisions. Hence, in essence, the grounds for challenge, in all the petitions, is that applying these provisions to the cases already pending before the Courts would tantamount to giving these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... existed in CR.P.C; before advent of the provision as contained in Section 148 of the Act. Hence, no new aspect of coercive recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant is being created through this amended provision. On the contrary, this provision provides more breathing space to the convict/appellant; as compared to the other procedures of recovery, as contemplated under Sections 421 and 424 of Cr.P.C, 1973 which is for more onerous in terms of time limit and the consequences. Since the provisions for recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant/convict already existed in the existing procedure relating to the recovery, therefore, the provision introduced vide Section 148 of the Act; which relates only to recovery of amount partly, as interim measure, has to be treated purely procedural only, which is otherwise also beneficial for the appellant as compared to the pre-existing provisions. Hence it has to be held that provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter. 35. This Court does not find any substance in argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in those petitions are set-aside. 37. The petitions where the challenge is to the order of the Appellate Court, directing the appellant to deposit 20% or more of the amount of fine or compensation as awarded by the Trial Court, are dismissed. Consequently, the Orders impugned in these petitions are upheld. In Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has dismissed the respective revision applications and has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, directing the appellants herein - original appellants - original accused to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation, in view of the provisions of amended Act No. 20 of 2018 in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act'), the original appellants -original accused have preferred the present appeals. 8. It is the case on behalf of the appellants that as the criminal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the N.I. Act, no substantive right of appeal has been taken away and/or affected. Therefore the decisions of this Court in the cases of Garikapatti Veeraya (supra) and Videocon International Limited (supra), relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act stated hereinabove, on purposive interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, we are of the opinion that Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No. 20/2018 i.e., prior to 01.09.2018. If such a purposive interpretation is not adopted, in that case, the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act would be frustrated. Therefore, as such, no error has been committed by the learned first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 2....