K K Bhardwaj vs Neelam Nagpal & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2509 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                    DECIDED ON : MARCH 24, 2015


+      CRL.REV.P. 180/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.4404-05/2015

       K K BHARDWAJ

                                                               ..... Petitioner

                           Through : Mr.Surinder Anand, Advocate.



                           versus



       NEELAM NAGPAL & ANR.

                                                            ..... Respondents

                           Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge the

legality and correctness of orders dated 27.02.2015 and 10.03.2015 of

learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.05/2015 whereby the

petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the penalty amount imposed by

the trial court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have

examined the file. I have also gone through the citation C.Murugesan vs.

Prabakaran & Anr. I (2012) BC 167 Madras High Court relied upon by

the petitioner.

3. Perusal of the file reveals that in the proceedings under

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner was held guilty

and by an order dated 27.01.2015, he was sentenced to pay fine of

`5,50,000/- out of which `5,25,000/- were payable to the complainant as

compensation and `25,000/- were to be deposited with the State. The said

order was challenged in appeal. Order on sentence dated 27.01.2015 was

directed to be suspended and the petitioner was admitted on bail on his

furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety in the

like amount subject to deposit of `25,000/- in the court as fine and 50% of

the remaining balance amount in the form of FDR in three equal

installments for a period of one year in the name of complainant with a

Nationalised bank. Dates 10.03.15, 10.04.15 and 10.05.15 were given to

deposit the amount. The petitioner did not comply the said order and

moved an application for its modification. Vide order dated 10.03.2015,

the petitioner's contention was accepted and he was directed to pay

`25,000/- as fine in the trial court on the same day. Regarding 50%

deposit, it was mentioned by the petitioner that it was not possible to get

the FDR issued in the name of the complainant as Pan number and ID

proof etc. were required by the bank. In view of this, the learned District

and Sessions Judge directed the FDR to be made in the name of the trial

court. The petitioner was given extension of time and the dates for

deposit of the three installments were rescheduled as 25.03.2015,

25.04.2015, and 25.05.2015.

4. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order

whereby 50% of the penalty amount was directed to be deposited in the

name of the court till the disposal of the appeal to protect the interest of

the complainant. The petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to

deposit the said amount. The petitioner though availed the benefit of

suspension of sentence failed to comply with the terms and conditions of

the order. On 10.03.2015, the petitioner sought modification and

rescheduling of the deposit. He did not challenge the earlier order dated

27.02.2015. Apparently, he was not aggrieved by the previous order

dated 27.02.2015 whereby he was directed to deposit 50% of the

remaining penalty amount.

5. The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed in limini.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. Copy of the order be sent

to Trial Court for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 24, 2015 sa