TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 passed by learned 25th Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2022 so far as the same has imposed payment of 20% of the amount (i.e. Rs. 50,47,397/-) by the appellant and his brother as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that respondent MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short' the MPSIDC) in the year 2001 filed a complaint for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 87,78,082/- against the applicant. Thereafter on 17.04.2004, the MPSIDC took the possession of the factory unit of M/s Alpine Industries P. Ltd. under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Thereafter a tripartite agreement was arrived at between MPSIDC, M/s. Alpine Industries Ltd. and M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that against the interim direction, revision is not maintainable. It is further contended that the lower appellate Court has rightly directed for depositing 20% of the amount as a condition precedent and the same does not in any way call for any interference by this Court. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Surinder Singh Deshwal v. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341 wherein it has been held that use of word "may" in Section 148 of the NI Act has to be read as "shall" and appellate Court must orinarily order depositing of minimum 20% of compensati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procedure without finally determining the rights of parties. Applying the test as to whether non-passing of such order or accepting of any plea by the accused or the complainant, whether it would result in culmination of proceedings, the answer is again in the negative. Therefore, applying any of the tests advocated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, still the order, which is passed in exercise of power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is neither a final order nor an intermediate order so as to hold that the revision as against the same is maintainable. 17. Thus, in this context, it is pertinent to state that by the judgment of Kerala High Court in Samuel George, Maliyekkal Bunglow's case (cited supra), it ....