Ravindra Vyas vs Rajendra Kumar Solanki
2022 Latest Caselaw 3009 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 663/2022

Ravindra Vyas S/o Gopaldas Vyas, Aged About 51 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Gopal Kunj, D-328-C, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Kumar Solanki S/o Rameshwar Solanki, Near Rampuriya Haveli, Bikaner.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Shanker Shrimali

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

24/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order

14.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner

(for short 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court while admitting

the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has suspended his

sentence with a condition that he will deposit 20% of fine awarded

by the trial court within a period of 60 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

trial court has wrongly ordered to deposit 20% of the fine amount

while suspending sentence of the petitioner instead of depositing

20% of the cheque amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

order dated 25.07.2019 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Vinayak Purohit & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. (SB

Criminal Misc. Petition No.3948/2019).

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-663/2022]

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

perusing the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881 (for

short 'the Act of 1881'), I am of the opinion that the trial court has

not committed any illegality in directing the petitioner to deposit

20% of the fine amount awarded by the trial court because

Section 148 (1) of the Act of 1881 clearly provides that the

appellate court while suspending sentence of a convict may order

to deposit such amount which shall be 20% of the fine and

compensation awarded by the trial court. The above provisions

does not speak about cheque amount.

In the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Vinayak Purohit (supra), the

provisions of Section 148 (1) of the Act of 1881 have not been

taken into consideration.

In such circumstance, this criminal misc. petition being

bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 45-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)