The appellants in these two appeals were the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate who tried them on a complaint filed by the respondent
No 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I. Act, the Sessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) subject to condition of appellants depositing 20% of the amount of compensation.
No so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that even considering the language used in Section 148 of the NI Act as amended, the appellate court “may” order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and the word used is not “shall” and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended Section 148 of the NI Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Section 148 of the NI Act, the word used is “may”, it is generally to be construed as a “rule” or “shall” and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned.
Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the NI Act is purposively interpreted in Section 148 of the NI Act, but also Section 138 of the NI Act.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act and also Section 138 of the NI Act.
However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the 5 revision petitions.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: JAMBOO BHANDARI Vs. M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002741-002741 / 2023
