Contrary to Section 148 of the NI Act, which is a resort to the complainant, the remedy under Section 389 CrPC is applicable to the convict: P & H HC
According to a recent ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the remedy under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to the convict while it is available to the complainant under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Justice Sureshwar Thakur bench ruled that, despite the authority provided by Section 148 of the Act, Section 389 of the Cr.scope P.C.’s and authority may never be seen as having been superseded.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class found Smt. Sunita Devi (respondent No. 2) guilty in this instance of violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 with relation to the notice of accusation.
The conviction was contested by the convict when she filed an appeal against it before the Additional Sessions Judge.
Instead of going before the relevant Appellate Court, the latter thereupon instituted an application filed under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The respondent was granted bail by the appellant court, which also suspended the respondent’s sentence.
The issue before the bench was as follows: “In the absence of Section 148 of the Act, completely ousting the workability or the force of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., provision(s) whereof become specifically constituted rather for ensuring the protection of the personal liberty of the convict, during the pendency of the appeal, preferred by him before the learned Appellate Court, therefore, it can be unflinchingly concluded, that the convict will not be released from prison
The court stated that even if the accused-respondent disobeyed the First Appellate Court’s ruling, the aggrieved-application complainant’s made according to Section 148 of the Act cannot lead to any inference that the accused-respondent would be amenable to being taken into custody.
The High Court ruled that failure to comply with a final order issued under Section 148 of the Act would not have any negative consequences for the threat to or jeopardization of the convict’s personal liberty or make him liable for being placed in judicial custody.
In light of the aforementioned, the bench revoked the contested order.
Amit Kumar
Vs
The State of Haryana and another
