Manohar Lal Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5929 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1444/2022

Manohar Lal Nayak S/o Kishtura Ram, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Nayak, R/o 399-K Nayako-Ka-Mohalla, Soorawali, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Vikas S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 30 Years, Chak 21 MOD Post Office Lakhasar, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     None present
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

22/04/2022

1. By way of the present misc. petition filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to

as "the Code"), the petitioner has challenged the order dated

05.01.2022, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to

as "the appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.3/2022, vide which

the appellant-petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- being 20% of the cheque amount as required under

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The basic premise for which the present petition has been

preferred is, that direction of deposit of 20% of the amount is

directive.

3. In the case of G.K. Construction Company Vs. Balaji Makan

Samagri Stores : S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 189/2022, decided

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1444/2022]

on 04.03.2022, this Court has already taken a view that the

provisions of Section 148 of N.I. Act are mandatory.

4. Operative part of the judgment aforesaid is reproduced

hereinfra:

"In light of the discussion foregoing, a purposive interpretation of section 148 of the Act is necessary and the same would warrant that the expression 'may' as contained in section 148 of the Act be read as 'shall'. Read this way, the provision would mean that the Court 'shall' order the convict to pay minimum of 20% amount of fine in an appeal against conviction under section 138 of the Act and resultantly, the plight of the drawee would be eased (as intended by the legislature while enacting section 148 of the Act) which otherwise would have been aggravated due to prolonged judicial proceedings."

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

adjudication so made, nothing remains to be done in the present

misc. petition, for which it is hereby dismissed.

6. Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 25-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)