Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

27 December 2024 1:28 PM

By: sayum


The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appellate court's order requiring the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount as a precondition for suspending the sentence in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of this deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act, emphasizing that exceptions are only permissible under specific circumstances supported by compelling reasons.

Facts of the Case: The petitioner, Amareshwar Singh, was convicted in three separate cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with the dishonor of cheques. Upon conviction, Singh appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The appellate court, while suspending the sentence pending the appeal, directed Singh to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court within 60 days. Singh challenged this condition, arguing that the order lacked sufficient reasoning and was therefore unjustifiable.

Mandatory Nature of Section 148 NI Act: The High Court, presided over by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, reiterated the mandatory requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act when an appellate court suspends the sentence in such cases. The court emphasized that this provision is intended to prevent delays in compensation to the payee, who has already suffered due to the dishonor of the cheque. Justice Bedi noted, "The amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act has been cautiously effected primarily to expedite the disposal of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and to maintain the sanctity of cheque transactions."

Rejection of Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate court failed to provide sufficient reasoning for imposing the 20% deposit condition. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that his case was exceptional and warranted exemption from the statutory deposit requirement. The court observed that the petitioner did not provide any such reasons, either during the hearing or in the petition itself.

Legal Reasoning: The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal & Ors. vs. Virender Gandhi (2019), which upheld the mandatory nature of the 20% deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act. The High Court also referred to the case of Rajni Dhingra vs. Sanjeev Chugh, where similar issues were discussed extensively. The court highlighted that the provision aims to expedite the resolution of cheque dishonor cases, ensuring that the payee receives timely compensation.

Conclusion: The Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision reinforces the statutory obligation under Section 148 of the NI Act to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspension of sentence during an appeal. This ruling is significant in maintaining the integrity of financial transactions and ensuring prompt redressal in cases of dishonored cheques. The judgment also clarifies that exceptions to this rule will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances, which must be convincingly demonstrated by the appellant.

 Date of Decision: July 24, 2024

Latest Legal News