Madras High Court
C.K.Chidambaram vs R.Chithiraivelu on 7 January, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1276 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 03.12.2024
Pronounced on : 07.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1276 of 2024
C.K.Chidambaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
R.Chithiraivelu ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections
438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the order in
Crl.M.P.No.5797 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.198 of 2024, dated 18.10.2024 on
the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and set
aside one of the condition No.1 as the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the
cheque amount i.e. Rs.2 lakhs before the trial Court within one month
from the date of the order.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Saliyakhan.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, dated
18.10.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.5797 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.198 of 2024
on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai directing to
deposit 20% of compensation amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The brief facts of the case:
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.129 of 2018 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, FTC at Magistrate Level,
Madurai. The said case was filed by the respondent against the revision
petitioner U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon the dishonour
of the cheque issued by the revision petitioner. After contest, the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, FTC at Magistrate Level, Madurai found the
petitioner guilty U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year
and also directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the
complainant towards compensation U/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months by its
judgment, dated 13.09.2024.
3. Challenging the judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the
appeal in Crl.A.No.198 of 2024 before the Principal Sessions Court,
Madurai. Along with the appeal, the revision petitioner has also filed the
petition in Crl.M.P.No.5797 of 2024 to suspend the sentence, in which,
the learned Principal Sessions Judge (i/c), Madurai passed the impugned
order, dated 18.10.2024 while suspending the sentenced imposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount. Being aggrieved by
the order, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
and perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has
submitted that the revision petitioner is working as a staff in private
college and is earning very meagre salary. He is facing very difficulty to
meet out his family expenses. It is further submitted that the cheque
transaction is of the year 2017. Section 143A of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was introduced on 01.09.2018, so the deposit of 20% is
not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned Judge failed to
consider these facts while imposing the condition directing the petitioner
to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. The imposing condition to
deposit 20% amount is not mandatory. Therefore, the condition may be
set aside. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner has relied on the following citations:
''(1) 2023(2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 17 (Mad.)
(M.Sivasamy /v/ Valampuri Investments)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2) AIROnline 2023 SC 1103 (Jamboo
Bhandari /v/ M.P.State Industrial Development
Corp.Ltd and Ors.)''.
6. The case is relating to dishonor of cheque filed under the
provisions of N.I. Act. The accused preferred the criminal appeal against
the conviction and compensation awarded by the trial Court. Whileso,
the first Appellate Court while considering suspension of sentence
imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount,
which is challenged in this criminal revision case.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported
in 2023 LIVE LAW SC 776 (Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P.State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors.) has directed the Courts to
consider the facts of each case before imposing 20% deposit.
The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
''6. What is held by this Court is that a
purposive interpretation should be made of
Section 148 of the N.I Act. Hence, normally,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of
the appellant, exception can be made for the
reasons specifically recorded.
7. Therefore, when Appellate Court
considers the prayer under Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C., of an accused who has been convicted for
offence under Section 138 of the N.I 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. In such nature of case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has
passed order in Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.356 of 2024 batch cases on 23.04.2024
after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal and Othres Vs. Virender
Gandhi, reported in 2019 11 SCC 341 and in the case of Surinder Singh
Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi and Another
reported in 2020 (2) SCC 514 and also 2023 LIVE LAW SC 776, as
follows:
''11. From the consideration of the above
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the object behind the incorporation of
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
the contention of the petitioner that the Court
below erred in imposing the condition to deposit
20% of the cheque amount cannot be accepted.
But, the percentage of the amount, which has to
be deposited could be assessed on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In this case, it is the
specific case of the petitioner/accused that he
has paid substantial payments and the same was
admitted by the respondent in his cross
examination. Therefore, this Court considering
the said submission, is inclined to reduce the
condition imposed by the learned appellate
Judge, vide orders, dated 03.02.2024, from 20%
of compensation amount to 10% of
compensation amount.''
9. From the above and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in AIR Online 2023 SC 1103 relied on by the petitioner,
it is clear that the imposing of 20% deposit U/s.148 of N.I Act is not
mandatory and imposing such condition will amount to deprivation of
the right of appeal of the appellant and the Appellate Court has to
consider whether it is an exception case which warrants grant of
suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20%
and the Appellate Court also to consider the facts and circumstances of
each case while imposing the condition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The another citation reported in 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 17
(Mad.) (M.Sivasamy vs. Valampuri Investments) is not applicable to
the facts of this case, as it relates to the order of deposit U/s.143 A of the
Act in pending case before the trial Court. In this case, the petitioner
stated that he is working as a staff in private college and he is earning
meagre salary and finds it difficult to meet out his family expenses.
Therefore, I concur the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court
passed in Crl.R.C.No.356 of 2024 batch cases and considering the
submission of the petitioner and I am inclined to reduce the condition
imposed by the learned Appellate Judge, from 20% of compensation
amount to 10% of compensation amount.
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and
modified the condition to pay 20% as 10% as follows:
(i) The petitioner is directed to deposit
10% of the compensation amount before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, FTC at
Magistrate Level, Madurai, instead of 20% as
condition imposed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Madurai (i/c) in Crl.M.P.No.
5797 of 2024 in Crl.ANo.198 of 2024, dated
18.10.2024;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) In other respects, the order of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai
(i/c) in Crl.M.P.No.5797 of 2024 in Crl.ANo.
198 of 2024, dated 18.10.2024 shall remain as
such.
07.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
