Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1301 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - Cancellation of suspension of sentence already granted to the petitioner(s) - failure to deposit 25% amount of compensation - Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 - HELD THAT:- Despite the clear time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no deposit has been made by the petitioner(s) till date; rather they have even stopped appearing before learned Appellate Court as is clear from the impugned order dated 20.07.2019 itself. Even thereafter, on 31.07.2019, petitioner(s) did not appear and now the matter is stated to be pending on 09.10.2019. Thus, the petitioner(s) are misusing the judicial forums on one pretext or the other and have made the mockery of the orders, passed by the entire judicial hierarchy including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no hesitation to record that all these petitions have been filed with an ulterior motive to prolong the litigation and to harass the respondent/complainant so that he may not get his lawful claim despite being successful up to the highest Court of this Country. Impugned order reveals that even on 01.07.2019, petitioner(s) moved applications for seeking exemption from personal appearance as well as to grant adjournment on the pretext that they were going to file some miscellaneous application(s) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a hope to get some more time for making the deposit of the amount in question, but no such order has been produced by them. Learned Appellate Court, while showing magnanimity and taking an undue lenient view, accepted the request of the petitioner(s) and granted them more time uptill 20.07.2019 to comply with the order for deposit of amount. Again on the next date of hearing i.e. 20.07.2019, two more applications of similar nature were filed on behalf of the petitioner(s) for seeking exemption from personal appearance as well as for adjournment of the appeal(s), but learned Appellate Court found no option except to reject the same and rightly so, while observing that their absence is intentional and they were avoiding the Court proceedings deliberately. The offence under Section 138 of the Act is bailable, but petitioner(s) stand already convicted and their sentence have been suspended under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., which inter alia envisages that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, that if he is in confinement, be released on bail - the sentence of petitioner(s) was suspended by learned Appellate Court subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court in favour of the respondent/complainant and also to furnish bail bond as well as surety bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in like amount. Thus, it cannot be said that sentence of the petitioner(s) has been suspended unconditionally or as a matter of course. This Court is of the firm opinion that impugned order(s), passed by learned Appellate Court while cancelling the suspension of sentence of the petitioner(s) on account of their failure to deposit 25% amount of compensation, are perfectly legal and justified, which do not warrant any interference by this Court by entertaining the present petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.
|