Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atul Goel vs M/S Mangat Ram Pawan Kumar on 28 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117
2023:PHHC:112532
CRM-M-34305-2023
Date of decision: August 28th, 2023
Atul Goel
.....Petitioner
Versus
M/s Mangat Ram Pawan Kumar
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The petitioner is impugning the order dated 16.03.2023
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Appellate Court, Karnal, in
CRA No.102 of 2023 vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit
20% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court under Section
148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Appellate Court gravely erred in directing the petitioner to deposit 20%
of the cheque amount, while suspending his sentence, as no such
arbitrary constraints could have been imposed on the right of the
personal liberty of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the condition of
deposit of 20% of the cheque amount under Section 148 of the Act
could have been only imposed on the drawer of the cheque i.e. the
company in the instant case and certainly not on the petitioner, as he
had been arraigned as an accused and convicted by the trial Court only
in his capacity of being a Director of the accused company.
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.08.31 04:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Lyka Labs Limited
and Anr. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 (1) Crimes
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the relevant material on record.
5. It would be relevant to refer to the following observation
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.
Deswal & others Versus Virender Gandhi 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal)
186:-
"9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of
the appellants that even considering the language
used in section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, the
appellate Court "may" order the appellant to deposit
such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the
fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court and
the word used is not "shall" and therefore the
discretion is vested with the first appellate Court to
direct the appellant - accused to deposit such sum
and the appellate court has construed it as
mandatory, which according to the learned Senior
Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the
provisions of section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended
is concerned, considering the amended section 148 of
the N.I. Act as a whole to be read with the Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the amending section 148
of the N.I. Act, though it is true that in amended
section 148 of the N.I. Act, the word used is "may", it
is generally to be construed as a "rule" or "shall"
and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is
an exception for which special reasons are to be
assigned. Therefore amended section 148 of the N.I.
Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass
an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant-
Accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less
than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an
application filed by the original complainant or even
on the application filed by the Appellant-Accused
under section 389 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to suspend the
sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.08.31 04:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
considering the fact that as per the amended section
148 of the N.I. Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial court is directed
to be deposited and that such amount is to be
deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of
the order, or within such further period not
exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the
appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the
appellant. Therefore, if amended section 148 of the
N.I. Act is purposely interpreted in such a manner it
would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only
amendment in section 148 of the N.I. Act, but also
section 138 of the N.I. Act. Negotiable Instruments
Act has been amended from time to time so as to
provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating
to the offence of the dishonoured of cheques. So as to
see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous
drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy
filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the
proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of
a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable
time and resources in the court proceedings to
realise the value of the cheque and having observed
that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the
cheque transactions, the Parliament has thought it fit
to amend section 148 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, such
a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of
the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in section
148 of the N.I. Act and also section 138 of the N.I.
Act."
6. Trite to say that, Section 389 of Cr.P.C. empowers the
Appellate Court to suspend sentence of the appellant accused subject to
conditions, as may be imposed by it. Thus, the reliance placed by
learned counsel for the petitioner on Lyka Labs Limited's case (supra)
would not come to his rescue as even therein the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court has reiterated the position of law as under:-
"50. However, in an appeal filed by persons other
than a drawer Appellate Court has power under
section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure Act to
direct deposit of amount in an appeal under
Section 148 of NI Act filed by persons other than
"drawer" against the conviction under section 138
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.08.31 04:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
of the NI Act while considering the application for
suspension of conviction or sentence."
7. As a sequel to the above and the settled ratio of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal's case
(supra), there can be no manner of doubt that the impugned order does
not suffer from any error much less any illegality and does not warrant
any interference by this Court, else it would defeat the very purpose
behind the enactment of Section 148 of the said Act.
8. There being no merit in the instant petition, it stands
dismissed.
August 28th, 2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2023.08.31 04:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
Chandigarh
