TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by filing evidence-in-chief as PW 1 on 03.02.2022. The cross examination of PW 1 resumed on 30.03.2022. Further cross examination resumed on 08.09.2022. Subsequently, the petitioners, on 11.11.2022, filed an application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as PW-1, Arunabha Biswas during his cross examination, was asked to produce agreement between Del Credere agency i.e. M/s Delhi Polymers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of which the complainant company had received the cheque. As such, production of the agreement was very essential for the present case. During hearing it was submitted by the complainant that it was the internal matter of the company with whom the company entered into agreement. It was also submitted that the documents as sought by the company was irrelevant and pressed for rejection of the petition. The said application was rejection by an order dated 19.04.2023 by observing, "It appears to this court that the complainant has filed this case against the accused company under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as such the duty is cast upon the complainant to prove their case with cogent documentary evidence. Accordingly, I do not find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able Instrument Act, the said application was allowed, considering the provision of section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as mandatory in the light of the judgement Surinder Singh Deswal (supra), though on 25.02.2025 there were 2 more Benchmark Judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the Judgement Surinder Singh Deswal (supra), but no fair opportunity to the petitioners to produce these two judgements before the learned Appellate Court below. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2742 of 2023) considered the judgement, Surinder Singh Deswal (supra). Therefore, when Appellate Court considered the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who had been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it was always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it was an exceptional case which warranted grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it was an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judication, and all pleas of the petitioner could be adjudicated upon in such appeal. The plea regarding opportunity not being afforded to the petitioner to file an objection was wholly specious and without substance. The impugned Order clearly revealed that no prayer was made by the petitioner for filing such an objection. Arguendo, even if it was hypothetically assumed that such a prayer was made, the non-acceptance of the same did not vitiate the impugned Order, particularly when every other submission of the petitioner had been duly considered, as evident from the impugned Order itself. Filing of a formal objection in this context was, at best, a procedural formality and its absence did not materially affect the adjudication. Furthermore, no plea of prejudice had been raised in the revision petition on account of such opportunity not being afforded. Section 148 was introduced by way of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 with the primary object of addressing undue delays in the disposal of appeals arising out of convictions under Section 138. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 ("Amendment Act") became effective from the 1st of September 2018 after the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal application, the affidavits and the written notes of submissions. 5. First, the merits of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act need not be delved into in great details. It also appears that the petitioners' contention as regards a prayer under Section 91 of the Code of 1973 was rejected by the learned Trial Court. There was a conviction of the present petitioners by a judgement dated 07.09.2024 while a co-accused was acquitted. 6. By the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioners to deposit 30% of the compensation amount granted by the Trial Court within 22.04.2025 in view of the Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 7. First, it does not appear that the petitioners were not heard. In fact, a detailed and reasoned order was passed after hearing of the respective parties. 8. In the instant case, the cheques in question were dishonoured of the year 2009. The same were dishonoured and notices were issued in 2009. A complaint case was filed. The petitioners were finally convicted in 2024. 9. In view of the detailed judgement and order of conviction and the delay in culmination of the proceeding before the Trial....