Sardar Sarvjeet Singh vs Janak Raj Khzanchi
2022 Latest Caselaw 11453 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 1182 of 2022.

.

Decided on : 23rd December, 2022.

Sardar Sarvjeet Singh ...Petitioner.

Versus

Janak Raj Khzanchi ....Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Nemo.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

None for the respondent despite service.

2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has

assailed the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed in

Cr.MA. No. 578 of 2022 (in Cr. Appeal no. 124 of 2022) by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Una, District

Una, H.P., only on the ground that the same is in violation

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

.

of mandate of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

3. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

provides that in an appeal filed against the conviction

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the

Appellate Court my order the appellant to deposit such

sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the

fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court with

proviso that the amount so payable shall be in addition to

interim compensation paid by the appellant under

Section 143-A. It further provides that the amount

referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within 60

days from the date of order, or within such further period

not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the

Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.

4. In the facts of the instant case, the petitioner

has filed the appeal against the order of conviction under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Una, District Una,

...3...

.

H.P. and along with appeal he has also filed an application

for suspension of sentence. It was in the application for

suspension of sentence that impugned order came to be

passed, whereby the appellant was afforded a period of

only thirty days for depositing the 20% of the

compensation amount.

5. The r contention to raised on behalf of the

petitioner, deserves to be accepted on the plain reading

of provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The Appellate Court is under a mandate

to allow a period of 60 days for depositing the amount as

required under sub-section (1) of Section 148 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Noticeably, Section 148

starts with a non obstante clause and therefore overrides

the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that vide judgment of conviction passed

against petitioner, he has been directed to pay fine,

...4...

.

whereas, in the impugned order amount has been

mentioned as compensation.

7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is

allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent

that the petitioner was afforded only a period of 30 days

for depositing the amount. Learned Appellate Court is

directed to pass the order afresh, keeping in view the

provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act and the observations made hereinabove. The

petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications,

if any, also stand disposed of.

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 23rd December, 2022.

(jai)