MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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