TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertained. This petition and applications are dismissed with cost of ₹25000/- to be paid by petitioner to respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal, if the pre-deposit is made by petitioner within the above stipulated time. - CRL.M.C. 2605/2019 & CRL.M.A.11307/2019, Crl.M.A.10436/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2019 - MR. SUNIL GAUR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Chandiok and Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1-State. Mr. Suneet Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No. 2. O R D E R Impugned order of 26th April, 2019 rejects petitioner s application for waiver of the condition of deposit of 20% of the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0% of the amount of debt due from him, whereas such a stringent condition is not prescribed by Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the merits of the case have to be considered prior to directing the deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. It is further submitted that trial in this case was not conducted summarily, so the bar to impose fine of not more than ₹5000/- is attracted to the instant case. It is further submitted that the trial in this case was not conducted summarily but was a regular trial and so, the sentence as per the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be awarded and first proviso to Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply. So, it is submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to urge that fine of more than ₹5000/- cannot be imposed. Imposition of deposit of 20% of fine amount in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act has been already upheld by High Court of Kerala in Alikkattu Veettil Musthafa Vs. The State and Another, (Crl M.C.No. 6384 of 2017 decided on 19th September, 2017) and Nitin Shahwat and Another (Supra). In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the direction issued by the Appellate Court to make pre-deposit of 20% of fine amount is justified. However, the consequence of non-deposit of fine, entailing cancellation of petitioner s bail is onerous one. Instead thereof, it is directed that if pre- deposit of 20% fine amount is not made by petitioner within six we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
