Karnataka High Court
Mr. G. Hemanth Chandra vs M/S Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd on 7 March, 2024
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7 TH
DAY OF MARCH, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. G. HEMANTH CHANDRA
S/O N. GANGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEAS,
R/O. KG LAKKENAHALLI,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562123. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. INFRATHON PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
NO.45, 1ST FLOOR,
INDUSTRY HOUSE,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. Y.BHASKAR
S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHADEV R.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HONB'LE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
2
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN MATTER
BEARING CRL.A.NO.1150/2023.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed praying this court to set aside the
order passed by the Trial Court dated 08.02.2024 on the file of
47th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-
68) allowing the application filed under Section 148 (3) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act' for short) to release a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- (20% of the
fine amount) deposited with the Hon'ble Court in furtherance to
order dated 20.12.2023.
2. The factual aspect of the case is that the petitioner
was arrayed as accused in C.C.No.1865/2021 in the proceedings
imitated under Section 138 of the Act for return of cheque for a
sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and the Trial Court ordered to pay a
sum of Rs.3,05,00,000/- to be paid to the respondent herein and
the same is challenged in criminal appeal and an application is
filed under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The court was pleased to allow the same and directed to deposit
a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- (i.e., 20% of the fine amount), as a
result, the same was deposited. The respondent preferred an
application under Section 148(3) of the Act seeking indulgence
of the First Appellate Court directing Trial Court to release the
said amount and hence, the petitioner herein had filed objections
to release the said amount. Inspite of objections being filed, the
same was allowed and hence, the present review petition is filed.
3. The office has raised the objections with regard to
maintainability of revision petition contending that the order
prayed for release of the amount and the same cannot be
entertained and there is a bar under Section 397(2) and the
same is not maintainable and Crl.A.NO.1150/2023 is still
pending before the Sessions Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner in his argument vehemently contends that the revision
petition is maintainable as it is an intermediate order and not an
interlocutory order and contends that the revision petition is
maintainable since, the order is passed under Section 148(3) of
the Act and this court held that the revision petition is
maintainable as the order is passed under Section 143A of the
Act. The learned counsel in support of his argument relied upon
a judgment of the coordinate bench of this court passed in
Crl.P.No.5944/2023 dated 28.07.2023, wherein the order dated
17.06.2023 is questioned, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of
the cheque amount to the respondent within 60 days from the
date of the order, wherein also the issue was raised with regard
to the maintainability and this court extracted Section 143A of
the Act and also Section 397(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C and held that
an intermediate order would mean an order that emerges within
a proceeding which culminates in closure of the said
intermediate proceeding. The closure happens on account of the
rights and liabilities of the parties being determined in the said
proceeding; therefore, it is an intermediate order. If it is an
intermediate order, the revision would undoubtedly be
maintainable before the Court of Sessions. It is also held that the
order passed under Section 143A of the Act is not interlocutory
order but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and
the application is closed, under the said provision, determining
the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and
revision petition before the court of Sessions on the order passed
by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the
application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the
aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to
approach. In the case on hand, the impugned order is for the
release of the amount, which is in deposit and deposit is also
made before the Trial Court on the direction of the fact
consequent upon entertaining the application filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C and sentence is suspended subject to payment
of 20% of the amount.
5. Having perused the order impugned, it is clear that
on compliance of interim order passed by the court, the amount
is deposited and also the order is clear that when the same is
subject to the condition that if the appellant succeeds in the
appeal, respondent / complainant shall return the said amount to
the appellant /accused with interest at the bank rate as
published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the
beginning of the relevant financial year, within 60 days from the
date of order or within such further period not exceeding 30
days. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 148(3) of
the Act is allowed and ordered to release the amount.
6. Now the question is only with regard to the
maintainability of the revision is concerned. Having perused
Section 148(3) of the Act and proviso, it is very clear that power
of the appellate court to direct the release of the amount
deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during
the pendency of the appeal. Provided that if the appellant is
acquitted, the court shall direct the complainant to repay to the
appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate
as published by the Reserve Bank of India, and the same is
taken note of by the trial court while passing the order. On the
other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
contend that the same is not a revisable order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon a decision in 'RIPEN KUMAR VS. DEPARTMENT OF
CUSTOMS', EQUIVALENT CITATION 2011 CRI L.J.1288,
wherein it is held that question of law raised with regard to
whether an order, passed in exercise of revision power under
Cr.P.C by a sessions Judge can be set aside by his successor at
the instance of the same petitioner, when it was not challenged
further and whether such an order, assuming it was passed not
in revisional jurisdiction, attain finality. The said judgment is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand with regard to the
maintainability is concerned. Insofar as the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel in 'AMAR NATH AND ORS., VS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.', CRL.A.NO.124/1977,
wherein also the question involved is with regard to exercising of
power under section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. If any order summoning
the appellant straight away was merely an interlocutory order,
which could not be revised by the High Court under Section
397(1) and (2) of the CR.P.C. The order of the judicial
magistrate summoning the appellants in the circumstances of
the present case, particularly having regard to what had
preceded was undoubtedly a matter of moment, the valuable
right of the appellants had been taken away by the magistrate
while passing the order prima facie in sheer mechanical fashion
without applying his mind.
8. Having considered the order passed by the
coordinate bench of this court also, the order impugned is with
regard to exercising the power under Section 143A of the Act
i.e., for directing the accused to pay interim compensation and
here is a case of releasing of the amount under Section 148A of
the Act and not the order passed under Section 148 and a
proviso is made to release of the amount deposited by the
appellant to the complainant at any time, during the pendency of
the appeal and further proviso is also very clear with a condition
to repay the amount. When such being the case, the same
cannot be termed as intermediate order as observed by the
coordinate bench and it is only an interlocutory order passed on
the application filed by the respondent invoking the proviso to
Section 148(3) of the Act and the same does not amount to
intermediate order and it amounts to interlocutory order and a
direction was given to release the amount subject to further
proviso as mentioned in Section 148(3) of the Act and the same
does not determine the closure of the case and determines only
the amount in deposit has to be released subject to the further
proviso to Section 148(3) of the Act and the statute has also
given the authority. When such being the case, the revision
petition is not maintainable and the same does not amount to an
intermediate order. The very contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that this court considered Section 143A of the
Act and allowed the petition that the revision petition is
maintainable and the same is under Section 148 of the Act as
Section 143A and under Section 143A the very same court
passed an order for interim compensation and under Section
148A of the Act, it is the appellate court. While granting stay
direct the appellant to deposit the amount and accordingly, the
amount is deposited under Section 148 of the Act. But here is a
case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under
Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate
order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is
not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the
appropriate court by filing appropriate petition. In view of the
discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is not maintainable and
accordingly it is dismissed with liberty to the
revision petitioner to file appropriate petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss
