Madras High Court
Sanmuganathan vs Murugesan on 23 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/02/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.9733 of 2019
Sanmuganathan : Petitioner/Single Accused
Vs.
Murugesan : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions have is filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the condition
imposed in Cr.M.P No.1716 of 2019 in C.A No.57 of 2019
dated 23/07/2019 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Juge, Sivagangai, payment of 20% of cheque amount
before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Karaikudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideedn Basha
For Respondent : No appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking in order to set
aside the order, that was passed by the appellate court in
Cr.M.P No.1716 of 2019 in C.A No.57 of 2019, dated
23/07/2019.
2.In the above said order, the appellate court has
passed a conditional order by making the petitioner to
deposit 20% of the cheque amount. Seeking to set aside the
above said order, this petition came to be filed.
3.Heard both sides.
4.A simple point of legal issue that has been raised
by the petitioner is that he was convicted and sentenced to
undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,60,000/- by the trial court namely the Judicial
Magistrate/Fast Track Court, Karaikudi, in C.C No.50 of
2017, dated 10/08/2018. Against the above said conviction
and sentence, he preferred C.A No.57 of 2019 before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. During
the above said proceedings, he has filed a petition under
section 389(3) Cr.P.C to suspend the sentence, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
ordered in Crl.M.P No.1716 of 2019 in C.A No.57 of 2019,
by which suspending the sentence, the appellate court has
imposed condition upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the
cheque amount to the credit of the above said CC No.50 of
2017 before the concerned Magistrate court. The order is
dated 23/07/2019. Thereafter, it was extended till
04/09/2019.
5.Challenging the above said portion of the order,
this petition is filed on the sole ground that as per the
case of the prosecution, the date of the alleged
transaction took place much before the amendment of
sections 143 and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
2002.
6.According to the petitioner, it has no retrospective
operation, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of L.G.R Enterprises Vs. P.Anbazhagan (2019(3) MLJ
(Crl) 423. That case was decided on 30/07/2019. In that
case, the retrospective operation of 143-A was under
discussion. By an Amendment Act 20 of 2014, section 143(A)
as well as 148 has been introduced with effect from
01/09/2018. By the side of discussing the retrospective
operation of section 143(A), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
also went into section 148. In Surinder Singh Deswal and
others Vs. Virender Gandhi (2019-8-SCALE 445) is direct on
that point. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the above said
judgment was of the view that section 148 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is retrospective in operation. Whether the
same analogy can be extended to section 143(A) was under
discussion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that
section 143(A) can only be the prospective in nature, but
section 148 is concerned, it is retrospective in nature.
The reason being that already the guilt of the accused has
been proved before the trial court, but whereas in section
143(A), there is no such proof of guilt. This judgment
cited by the petitioner in L.G.R Enterprises, represented
by its Proprietric Sindh @ Lakshmi Vs. P.Anbazhagan (2019)3
MLJ (Crl)423, was decided on 12th July 2019.
7.According to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, what applies to the principles in section
143(A) equally applies to section 148 of the Act also. But
as mentioned earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clarified the position stating that sections 143(A) and 148
are operating in different fields.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
8.The next argument advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that even though discretion
has been given by the appellate court under section 148 of
the Act, the reason for imposing such a condition is not
stated in the order.
9.I am unable to accept the view of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, simply because the
discretion has been given by the appellate court. In law,
the petitioner cannot expect that the discretion must be
exercised in his favour. Only on going through the records,
such an order has been passed by the appellate court. So
absolutely, I find no merit in this petition and the
impugned order that has been passed by the appellate court
requires no interference.
10.In the result, this criminal original petition
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
11.After passing the order, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is the aged person, so on that ground, he wants
to dispense with his personal appearance before the
concerned trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
12.The said request is considered. Considering the
profession of the petitioner, his personal appearance is
dispensed with. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, the petitioner must appear before the
trial court and file an undertaking affidavit that he will
appear as and when required by the court, the attested
photograph must be attached in the affidavit and he must
ensure that he is properly represented by an Advocate.
23.02.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
er
Note:In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16349 of 2019
23/02/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
