Rajasthan High Court
Ram Prasad @ Ram Prakash Son Of Shri Bansi ... vs Yogendra Singh Hada Son Of Late Shri ... on 18 December, 2023
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:40221]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10542/2022
Ram Prasad @ Ram Prakash Son Of Shri Bansi Lal, Aged About
61 Years, Resident Of ACC Guest House Ke Pass, Lakheri, District
Bundi (Rajasthan).
----Non Complainant-Petitioner
Versus
Yogendra Singh Hada Son Of Late Shri Bheru Singh Hada,
Resident Of Sant Nirankari Satsang Bhawan Ke Pass, Brahmano
Ki Hatai, District Bundi.
----Complainant- Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Singh Jakhar for
Mr. Ashwani Chobisa
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
18/12/2023
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC
has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated
02.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Bundi (for brevity "the learned appellate Court") in Appeal
No.207/2022 whereby, while staying the operation of the sentence
dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in
Regular Criminal Case No.279/2016, CIS No.327/2016, CNR
No.RJBD020005352016 convicting the accused-petitioner (for
short "the petitioner") under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the Act of 1881"), he has been
directed to deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- with a further stipulation
[2023:RJ-JP:40221] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-10542/2022]
for its disbursement to the respondent/complainant (hereinafter
referred to as "the complainant") on furnishing of an undertaking
to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in case
the petitioner succeeds in the appeal.
The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that although, he is ready to deposit the amount as
directed by the learned appellate Court; but, it should not be paid
to the complainant as he may suffer hardship to recover it back in
case his appeal succeeds. He, therefore, prays that the criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed and the order dated 02.11.2022
be quashed and set aside to the extent that it directs releasing the
payment in favour of the complainant.
Heard. Considered.
Section 148 of the Act of 1881 reads as under:-
"148. Power of Appellate Court to
order payment pending appeal against
conviction.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer
against conviction under section 138, the
Appellate Court may order the appellant to
deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of
twenty per cent. of the fine or compensation
awarded by the trial Court:
Provided that the amount payable under
this sub-section shall be in addition to any
interim compensation paid by the appellant
under section 143A.
(2) The amount referred to in sub-section
(1) shall be deposited within sixty days from
the date of the order, or within such further
[2023:RJ-JP:40221] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-10542/2022]
period not exceeding thirty days as may be
directed by the Court on sufficient cause being
shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the
release of the amount deposited by the
appellant to the complainant at any time during
the pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted,
the Court shall direct the complainant to repay
to the appellant the amount so released, with
interest at the bank rate as published by the
Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the
beginning of the relevant financial year, within
sixty days from the date of the order, or within
such further period not exceeding thirty days
as may be directed by the Court on sufficient
cause being shown by the complainant.]"
Thus, in view of the aforesaid provision, the learned
appellate Court has discretion to order release of the payment so
deposited by the appellant in favour of the complainant in an
appeal arising out of conviction under Section 138 of the Act of
1881.
A perusal of the order dated 02.11.2022 reveals that the
learned appellate Court has directed release of the amount to be
deposited by the petitioner in favour of the complainant subject to
his furnishing an undertaking with stipulation to refund the
amount with interest @ 9% per annum in case the appeal
succeeds. The order is in consonance with the statutory scheme.
This Court finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the
learned appellate Court in exercise of its judicious discretion.
[2023:RJ-JP:40221] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-10542/2022]
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed
being deovid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/1312
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
