Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Panchal vs Suresh Panchal on 19 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6587 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SATISH PANCHAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL PANCHAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O.
145, VILLAGE MANDALAVADA, P.S. SANWER, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKASH RATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
SURESH PANCHAL S/O SHRI MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUARD BANK OF INDIA EX
ARMY OFFICER 41, SILVER PARK,P.S. INDUSTRIAL
AREA KSHIPRA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 29/1/2024 passed by the appellate
Court whereby on his application for grant of suspension of sentence awarded
by the trial Court, he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,76,000/-.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground
that it was not mandatory for the appellate Court to have directed for deposit of
the amount in terms of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
as the said power is discretionary and not mandatory. It is further submitted that
as per the order no period has been granted to the petitioner for depositing the
said amount which was mandatory in terms of Section 148(2).
3. The petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of
a cheque in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and has been directed to pay
compensation in the sum of Rs.3,80,000/- total amount being Rs.13,80,000/-.
The same has been passed after due consideration of the evidence brought on
record by both the parties hence it cannot be said that the appellate Court has
exercised its jurisdiction in an illegal manner in directing the petitioner to deposit
the sum as aforesaid. All the contentions as have been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in this petition to assail the judgment passed by the
trial Court would be available to the petitioner to be raised before the appellate
Court. Thus in my opinion, the direction of the appellate Court to the petitioner
to deposit the amount as directed cannot be faulted with.
4. However, it is observed that in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section
148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is mandatory that atleast a period of sixty
days should be given for depositing the amount as directed under sub-Section
(1). The appellate Court has not granted any such time to the petitioner and on
the contrary the impugned order shows that the same would come into effect
only upon depositing of the amount by the petitioner which is in contravention
to the express provisions of sub-Section (2) as aforesaid. It is also noticed that
the petitioner has been directed to deposit a considerable amount of
Rs.2,76,000/- for which he ought to be granted sufficient period.
period of 75 days for depositing the amount as directed by the appellate Court,
ie., Rs.2,70,000/- less any amount which may have already been deposited by
him before the trial Court. Till the expiry of a period of 75 days from the date of
passing of the impugned order, the order passed by the trial Court granting bail
to the petitioner shall remain in operation.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
