A.K Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner is the appellant in Crl.A.No.452/2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. He assails the order dated 18.01.2023 issued in Crl.M.P.No.331/2023, in the above appeal, directing deposit of 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short’ the NI Act’).

Sri. Shiju Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the impugned order has not referred to the contentions advanced, especially with regard to the agreement, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A6. The learned counsel further submitted that a legally enforceable debt had not arisen as per the terms of the agreement, and therefore, the direction to deposit 20% of the fine amount is contrary to law. The learned counsel also submitted that the Supreme Court had in Jamboo Bandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [2023 (6) KHC 80] held that reasons had to be specified for imposing conditions under Section 148 of the NI Act and in Baiju v.State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 196], a learned Single Judge of this Court had also held that reasons must be specified while imposing conditions under Section 148 of the NI Act. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order does not reflect any reason for directing such a deposit, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

I have heard Sri. Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

Though this Court has already referred to the Division Bench the decision in Baiju v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 196], I am of the view that since the learned Sessions Judge was already directed to reconsider its own earlier order directing deposit due to the failure to specify reasons, the said issue need not deter this Court from considering this petition on merits.

In the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court had given detailed reasons for imposing the condition of deposit of 20% as contemplated under Section 148 of the NI Act. The reason for imposing conditions as observed in the decision in Jamboo Bandari’s Case (Sura) are not those on merits or after re-appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. Re-appreciation of the evidence is required only at the time of the final hearing of the appeal.

What is contemplated under Section 148 of the NI Act is only a measure of interim arrangement whereby the Trial Court’s order directing payment of fine must be given due regard, especially due to the delay that may occur in disposing of appeals. If ultimately the appeal is allowed, provisions are made in the statute itself for refund of the amount directed to be deposited under Section 148 of the NI Act.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has given specific reasons for imposing the condition. Whether there is any legally enforceable debt or not, are all matters to be considered at the time of the final hearing. At this stage, neither the appellate court nor this Court can come to a conclusion that there was no legally enforceable debt at all, so as to avoid the petitioner from complying with the mandatory condition under Section 148 of the NI Act.

In this context, it has to be observed that Section 148 of the NI Act is not a condition for suspending the sentence but is only a measure of interim arrangement.

Since I have already held that sufficient reasons have been stated by the Sessions Judge to direct deposit of 20% of the fine amount, I find no merit in this criminal miscellaneous case.

Notwithstanding the above, having regard to the entire circumstances and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that a period of 30 days from 17.03.2024 can be granted to make the deposit. Therefore, the time to deposit the 20% of fine amount as directed by the Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, in the impugned order dated 18.01.2024, shall stand extended till 17.04.2024.

With the above observations, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.