Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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