2023 (8) TMI 1436 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - condition has been imposed upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount - Seeking quashing of condition imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram while suspending the sentence of the petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no doubt to the mind of this Court on perusal of the statement of object and reasons for introducing these provisions is to address the issue of undue delay in final resolution of the cheque dishonor cases and to provide interim relief to the holder of the cheque in due course, as well as, to discourage the frivolous and unnecessary litigation; besides strengthening the credibility of the cheques as mode of payment; so as to help the trade and commerce in general and the lending institutions and the banks in particular in extending financial facilities to productive sectors of economy. In the case in hand, the compensation amount has been adjudicated to be half of the amount of cheque involved which by no means can be said to be un-reasonable or arbitrary. Coming to the question of validity for imposing the restriction to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation as a pre-requisite for suspending the sentence, the Apex Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS VIRENDER GANDHI 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT , has observed that power of Appellate Court directing appellant original accused to deposit more than 20% of fine amount is mandatory in nature. It is also well known to this Court that certain unscrupulous and notorious drawers of the dishonored cheque have been misusing the procedural delay to their advantage after obtaining stay on the proceedings which only frustrates the basic object and reason of incorporation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The amendment in Section 148 of the said Act has been cautiously effected primarily having at the back of mind to expedite the disposal of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and by no stretch of discussion, it could be said that the substantive right of appeal of the accused-appellant has been taken away/or effected. The petitioners-accused are directed to deposit the amount as ordered by the Lower Appellate Court within the stipulated time of 60 days, which may be further extended by 30 days - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Validity of the imposed condition to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Sections 143-A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram while suspending the sentence of the petitioner.

2. Factual Background:
In February 2014, the accused, along with her family, sought a loan of Rs. 1.5 crore for investment purposes. The accused issued cheques that were dishonored with the remark "Payment stopped by drawer." Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed, resulting in the accused's conviction under Section 138 NI Act and an order to pay compensation of Rs.1.5 crore.

3. Imposed Condition to Deposit 20%:
The Appellate Court, while suspending the sentence, imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount within 60 days. The petitioner argued that this condition was illegal and arbitrary, contending that Sections 143-A and 148 of the Act were not in existence at the time of the trial and that the appeal should be heard on merits without such preconditions.

4. Interpretation of Sections 143-A and 148:
Sections 143-A and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, empower the Trial and Appellate Courts to order interim compensation and deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation, respectively. These provisions aim to address undue delays in cheque dishonor cases and provide interim relief to the complainant.

5. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
The petitioner relied on the judgment in "Vivek Sahni vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd" and "Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd." However, these were distinguished as not applicable. The Supreme Court in "Surinder Singh Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi" upheld the mandatory nature of depositing 20% of the fine or compensation under Section 148 NI Act.

6. Court's Observations:
The High Court observed that the provisions of Sections 143-A and 148 were introduced to expedite the resolution of cheque dishonor cases and prevent misuse by unscrupulous drawers. The court emphasized that these amendments were aimed at providing speedy relief and maintaining the credibility of cheques.

7. Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits. The petitioners were directed to deposit the amount as ordered by the Lower Appellate Court within the stipulated time of 60 days, extendable by 30 days. The period of 60 days would commence from the date a certified copy of the order is received by the trial Court.