TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled, thus, the appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 by which it has rejected to stay the operation of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial court has failed to consider the Statutory Provisions as enshrined under Section 148(1) and 148(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. This Court finds that the Appellate Court has erred in law while rejecting the stay application of the appellant/petitioner, by which it was prayed by the appellant/petitioner to stay the fine of Rs.4,00,000/- imposed by the trial court while convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner before the Appellate Court. Petition disposed off. - Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J. For the Petitioner : Lal Bahadur Khan For the Respondent : G. A. ORDER Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J. 1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true and full facts it was also averred that initially, a Saving Bank account pertaining to the petitioner State Bank of India, Branch-Babatpur Varanasi in respect of which a cheque was issued by the petitioner to the present opp. party no. 2 towards guarantee/security money but when the said account was closed and the petitioner opened new account in State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur, Branch Babatpur Varanasi, then the petitioner made payments to the present opp. party no. 2 from his new account on 14.05.2013 of Rs. 200028/-, on 03.06.2013 of Rs. 40000/-, on 17.07.2013 of Rs. 25000/-, on 19.08.2013 of Rs. 30000/-, on 27.09.2013 of Rs. 25000/-, on 11.11.2013 of Rs. 25000/- on 24.10.2014 of Rs. 35000/-, on 21.04.2014 of Rs. 20000/- on 03.07.2014 of Rs. 20000/- but the opp. party no. 2 despite having full knowledge of closure of the first account, submitted the previous cheque which was given by the petitioner towards guarantee/security money. Although, the petitioner had issued a cheque towards guarantee/security money from his new account to opp. party no.2 and as such there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Learned Appellate Court although vide order dated 29.02.2024 has been pleased to admit the appeal and also to allow the Bail Application but by the same order despite admitting the appeal erroneously decline to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court and thereby, rejected the Stay Application (Paper No. 5B) and further directed the appellant to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the order and also provided that in case non-deposition of fine by the appellant, the bail order shall stand automatically cancelled. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Appellate Court while passing the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 by which it has declined to stay the operation of the order passed by the Trial Court, has failed to consider the Statutory Provisions as enshrined U/S 148(1) 148 (2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 by which the Appellate Court has provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 1881, which has been inserted in the Act through Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No 20 of 2018) to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques so as to see that due to delay tactics by unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay in proceedings, injustice caused to payee of dishonoured cheque who has spent considerable time and resource in court proceedings to realise value of cheque, thus, having observed that such delay has compromised sanctity of cheque transaction, Parliament thought it fit to amend Section 148 Purposive interpretation of Section 148 would be in furtherance of Objects and Reasons of amendment of Section 148 and also Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 148 of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which has been inserted in the Act through Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No 20 of 2018) is reproduced hereunder:- Section-148 Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the drawer against convictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oneously rejected the stay and operation of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial court and thereby, rejected the stay application (Paper No.5B) and further directed him to deposite amount of fine imposed by the trial court within a period of ten days' from the date of the order and also provided that in case of non-deposition of fine by the appellant/petitioner, the order of granting bail to the appellant/petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled, thus, the appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 by which it has rejected to stay the operation of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial court has failed to consider the Statutory Provisions as enshrined under Section 148(1) and 148(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 as discussed above, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. 20. It is further observed here that the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Appellate Court, by which it was provided that in case of failure of deposition of fine by the appellant/petitioner, the Bail Order shall stand automatically cancelled appears to be punitive in nature and is against the settled proposition of law as it is a se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the NI Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act, but also Section 138 of the NI Act. The Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonour of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions, Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the NI Act. Therefore, such a purposive in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner before the Appellate Court. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition with modification of the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 to the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the fine imposed upon him by the trial court within sixty days' from the date of delivery of this judgment by this Court and the bail already granted by the Appellate Court shall continue till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge Faizabad (now Ayodhya) bearing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024 ((Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. Shanti Roller Mills Ltd.). 25. It is further directed that the petitioner will be on bail as granted by the Appellate Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 with same terms and conditions as imposed by the Appellate Court while granting him bail. 26. It is hereby made clear that if 20% of the fine imposed is not deposited by the petitioner within the period of sixty days from the date of pronouncement of this judgment by this Court, then the bail already granted by the Appellate Court concerned shall stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
