AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 671 wordsA.Badharudeen, J.
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein referred to as `Cr.P.C’ for short) challenging Annexure-2 order in Crl.M.P.No.1150/2020 in Crl.Appeal No.16/2020 pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is the petitioner in the above Crl.M.P.
As per the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge while suspending the sentence imposed by the trial court in S.T.No.365/13 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court-II, Pathanamthitta, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. The prayer herein are as under:
“(i) To set aside Annexure-2 order in Crl.M.P.No.1150/2020 in Crl.App.No.16/2020 on the file of Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta,
(ii) stay the conviction warrant issued by the J.F.C.M, No.II, Pathanamthitta in S.T No.365/2013 for a period of Four months to enable the petitioner to approach Hon: Supreme Court.”
At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Apex Court in [2019 (3) KHC 355 : 2019 (2) KLD 1 : 2019 (2) KLT 985 : ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 713 : 2019 (2) KLJ 983 : 2019 (8) SCALE 445 : AIR 2019 SC 2956 : 2019 CriLJ 3507 : 2029 (11) SCC 341], Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi holding the view that the word `may' used in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `N.I Act' for convenience) to be construed as a `rule' or `shall', is not good law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out other decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [(2007) 6 SCC 528], Dilip S.Dhanukar v. Kotak Mahindra; [2015 (1) KLT Suppl.114 (SC)], Vediocon International Ltd v. SEBI of India; [(1994) 4 SCC 602], Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra; [AIR 1970 SC 1636], Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar; [(1979) 1 SCC 92], Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto; [(1976) 2 SCC 917], Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim; [AIR 1995 SC 1012], K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala; [1957 SCR 488], Garikapati Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhry; [AIR 2001 SC 2472], Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & anr.; [(1963) 3 SCR 884], Amir Singh & anr. v. Ram Singh & Ors. to substantiate this point.
In fact, this contention cannot be considered by this Court and this Court is bound under Article 141 of the Constitution of India to follow the ratio of the Apex Court dealing with the matter in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi (supra). Therefore, this challenge is found to be meritless and is accordingly dispelled.
This Court also followed the said ratio in a decision reported in [2020 (1) Crimes(HC) 582], Thomas v. State of Kerala & anr.
The legal position is not in dispute that as per the statutory mandate under Section 148 of the N.I Act, in an appeal filed against conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act, the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine amount or compensation awarded by the trial court. It is provided that the amount payable under sub section (1) of Section 148 of the N.I Act, shall be paid by the accused under Section 143-A of the N.I Act.
Thus it appears that the direction for deposit of 20% of the compensation amount as per the impugned order is within the power of the appellate court and the Apex Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi (supra) held that such direction can be issued reading the word `may' in Section 148 of the N.I Act as `rule' or `shall'. Therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.