TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] wherein it has been held 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 - thus, the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. Thus, in the case of Surinder Singh Deshwal [ 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT ] Hon ble the Apex Court has held that use of word may in Section 148 of the NI Act has to be read as shall and appellate Court must orinarily order depositing of minimum 20% of compensation or fine amount imposed by the trial Court. The impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2022, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal convicted the appellant and levied interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 10.06.2001 till the date of the judgment. The appellant preferred an appeal (Cri.A. No.300 of 2022) against the aforesaid judgment. The lower appellate Court by impugned judgment dated 05.07.2022 directed the applicant to deposit 20% of the amount in question i.e. Rs. 50,47,397/- as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence. 4 . The main contention of the senior counsel for the applicants is that in view of tripartite agreement executed towards settlement of all dues during pendency of the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the liability under the cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Others , (Criminal Revision No.219 of 2021 decided on 07.05.2022) 6 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7 . The most of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant pertain to merits of the case. So far as the maintainability of the revision is concerned, it is appropriate to refer to subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: 397. Calling for records to exercise power of revision. (2) The power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. 8 . In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance case where the direction of deposit is made coupling it as a condition for grant of suspension of sentence, this Court had already held in Udaiyar @ Sattaludaiyar v. State [Crl.R.C.(MD). No. 126 of 2018] (stated supra) that the order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail are all interlocutory orders and are not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, viewing from any angle, I hold that the Revision against the present order is not maintainable. Thus, the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. 9 . That apart, in the case of Surinder Singh Deshwal (supra) Hon ble the Apex Court has held that use of word may in Section 148 of the NI Act has to be read as shall and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
