TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.02.2020, while suspending the sentence of the appellant, did not direct the petitioner (appellant therein) to pay any amount in terms of Section 148 of the NI Act by misreading the judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioner and directing him to pay the cheque amount. The direction issued by the trial Court to pay the cheque amount, could not in any manner be construed that no compensation had been awarded. The Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS VIRENDER GANDHI [ 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT] as well as in the case of G.J. RAJA VERSUS TEJRAJ SURANA [ 2019 (8) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] had granted four weeks' further time to the appellants therein to make the paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellate Court, it could not be reviewed or modified later in terms of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Heard. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay the cheque amount of ₹ 50 lacs jointly or severally. The operative part of the order dated 23.01.2020 is reproduced hereunder:- 'Convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and pay cheque amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- jointly or severally. In case a default of payment of penalty, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioner and directing him to pay the cheque amount. The direction issued by the trial Court to pay the cheque amount, could not in any manner be construed that no compensation had been awarded. The Appellate Court by the order dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) had directed the petitioner (appellant therein) to pay 25% of the compensation amount during the pendency of the appeal. The order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) is neither the final order nor an order finally disposing of the controversy in issue, therefore, the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not come into effect. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 'Court not to alter judgement. Save as otherwise provided by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in financial difficulty and was legitimately pursuing his legal remedy, therefore, he may be granted some more time to deposit 25% of the cheque amount. The Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others vs. Virender Gandhi, in Criminal Appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.4948-4975/2019, dated 29.05.2019 as well as in the case of G.J. Raja versus Tejraj Sharma passed in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2019 on 30.07.2019, had granted four weeks' further time to the appellants therein to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
