Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1782 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - direction to petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Trial Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - case of petitioner is that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and discriminatory as it has been passed without assigning any reasons or without appreciating the records and proceedings - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Amendment Act No. 20/2018 amending Section 148 of the Act came into force with effect from 01/09/2018. Considering the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the Act and while suspending the sentence in exercise of powers under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the first appellate Court directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation as imposed by the learned Trial Court, the same can be said to be absolutely in consonance with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of amendment in Section 148 of the Act. It is specifically observed that because of the delay tactics of unscrupulous .drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings, the object and purpose of the enactment of Section 138 of the Act was being frustrated, the Parliament has therefore suitably amended Section 148 of the Act conferring power upon the Appellate Court to direct the convict accused/appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the compensation defined or awarded by the Trial Court. It is difficult to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has been denied an opportunity to satisfy the learned Additional Sessions Court as to how the petitioner's case would come within the exceptions, for the reasons that the impugned order indicates not only an opportunity to hear the petitioner's Counsel was given, but the learned Appellate Court has also perused the appeal memo as well as the judgment and order of the Trial Court. Merely because the record and proceedings of the Trial Court were not before the Appellate Court at the time of passing the impugned order would not prohibit the Court from passing an order after giving a full hearing to the learned Counsel at the time of suspending the sentence. The appellant is directed to deposit 25% of the compensation/fine amount awarded by the trial court - Application allowed.
|