Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 2 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - quantum of compensation amount - case of complainant is that inasmuch as Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lays down that 20% of the compensation/fine amount has to be deposited, while in the instant case, double the cheque amount has been ordered as compensation - HELD THAT:- The bar in sub-section (2) of Section 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the purposes of Article 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory orders within the meaning of Section 397(2). It is neither advisable, nor possible, to make a catalogue of orders to demonstrate which kinds of orders would be merely, purely or simply interlocutory and which kinds of orders would be final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types of orders which will fall in between the two. The first two kinds are well-known and can be culled out from many decided cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the issue and laid down tests characterise whether an order is interlocutory order or not. In Hasmukh A. Jahveri Vs. Shella Dadlani [1980 (9) TMI 293 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the meaning of the term “interlocutory order” is not always converse of the term “final order” and held that an order determining important rights and liabilities cannot be termed as interlocutory. Applying the tests to the power exercisable under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is not a pre-condition in the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order of deciding the appeal. Applying the test of deciding the rights of the parties, it has been held that it is only a direction to deposit, subject to the final outcome in the appeal and therefore is only a matter of 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. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MADHU LIMAYE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable.
|