Bhaskar Das vs Harkumar Das And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 5129 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Bhaskar Das vs Harkumar Das And Anr on 30 May, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010047792025




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/210/2025

            BHASKAR DAS
            S/O SRI RISHAV DAS, R/O BELTOLA, KRISHNAPUR, DHARMESWAR TARO
            PATH, HOUSE NO. 40, GUWAHATI-28, P.S.-BASISTHA, DIST.-KAMRUP (M),
            ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            HARKUMAR DAS AND ANR
            HARKUMAR DAS, S/O SRI TRAILOKYA NATH DAS, R/O VILL.-JOTIGAON
            (GAJIA ROAD), BARPETA, P.S.AND DIST.-BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781314.

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP BY THE PP ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR J H SAIKIA,

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                            ORDER

Date : 30.05.2025

1. Heard Mr. J. H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. C. Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner for modification/alteration of order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2025 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit further Page No.# 2/5

20% of the remaining awarded compensation as a condition for allowing the suspension of sentence and to allow petitioner to go on bail during the pendency of the connected criminal revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before preferring the Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2025, the petitioner had preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 35/2023 in Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta impugning the judgment passed in NI Case No. 90/2021. He submits that at the time of admission of the said appeal, he was directed to pay 20% of the awarded amount and accordingly he had deposited the 20% awarded amount. He also submits that as the petitioner has already deposited 20% of the awarded amount while preferring the first appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, hence, again directing him to deposit 20% would be unjust and would impose such a condition which would amount to deprive him of his right to pursue this revision.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing severe financial constraint as the cousin brother of the petitioner is suffering from various critical ailments and it is the petitioner who is incurring the medical expenditures on the treatment of his cousin brother. He further submits that under such circumstances this Court is empowered to waive the imposition of 20% of the awarded amount as a condition for grant of bail to the present petitioner by order dated 25.02.2025.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of " Jamboo Bhandari -Vs- M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others" reported in

"(2023) 10 SCC 446".

6. On the other hand, Mr. U. C. Rabha, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/5

respondent No. 1 has objected to any such modification by this Court as it is empowered under Section 148 of the NI Act to impose such a condition precedent for suspension of sentence while admitting an appeal. He submits that the same principle is applicable in case of a revision also.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides.

8. It appears that while admitting the connected Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2025 by order dated 25.02.2025 and while suspending the sentence imposed on the revisionist during the pendency of the said revision petition, it was directed that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the outstanding compensation amount before the Trial Court. Same was also one of the conditions for allowing the petitioner to go on bail during the pendency of the connected criminal revision petition.

9. The Apex Court, in the case of " Jamboo Bhandari -Vs- M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others" (supra) has observed as

follows:-

"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should

be made of Section 148 NI Act. Hence, normally, the appellate court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. 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.

7. Therefore, when the appellate court considers the prayer under Section 389CrPC of an accused who has been convicted for offence Page No.# 4/5

under Section 138 NI Act, it is always open for the appellate court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

8. 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. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the courts to consider the said plea.

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not".

10. Though, prima facie, the provisions contained in Section 148 of NI Act, 1881 as well as the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment are applicable in case of an appeal, however, this Court is of considered opinion that same principle is also applicable in a revision petition wherein the judgment of the First Appellate Court whereby it has upheld the conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is impugned. In such a revision application when there is a prayer made for suspension of sentence during the pendency of Page No.# 5/5

revision petition, the provisions of Section 148 of NI Act would be applicable. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of " Jamboo Bhandari -Vs- M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others" (supra) would

also be applicable in such case.

11. In the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2025, this Court did not take into consideration whether an exceptional case is made out which warrants suspension of sentence without imposing any condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount. As per the observations made by the Apex Court it was incumbent on upon this Court to consider at that time as to whether the case is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount.

12. As the revisionist had once deposited 20% of the compensation amount while preferring appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Session Judge, Barpeta and as he has cited financial constraint in depositing further 20% during the pendency of the connected criminal revision petition, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case where the suspension of the sentence imposed by the impugned judgment may be made without imposing any condition of further deposit of 20% of the compensation. Accordingly, the order dated 25.02.2025 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner need not to deposit 20% of the total outstanding amount in terms of his own rights during the pendency of the connected criminal revision petition.

13. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant