Denying Regular Appointment To Candidate Selected Through Regular Process Is Patently Illegal And Unconstitutional: Supreme Court Medical Students Transferred Mid-Session From Deficient Colleges Must Pay Fees At Private Rates, Not Govt Rates: Supreme Court Evidence Of Interested Witness Requires Extra Caution; Cannot Support Conviction If Contradicted By Other Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Arbitration Clause In Main Agreement Validly Incorporated Into Subsequent Individual Contracts If Reference Shows Intent To Bind Parties: Supreme Court Insurer Must Prove Lack Of Driving License To Avoid Liability, Cannot Arbitrarily Reduce Disability Assessed By Medical Board: Andhra Pradesh High Court Secured Creditor’s Statutory Right Under SARFAESI Act Cannot Be Interdicted By Provisional Attachment Under MPID Act: Bombay High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable For Person Already In ‘Constructive Custody’ Of Law; Successive Plea Without Change In Circumstances Barred: Punjab & Haryana HC Keeping Accused In Jail Pending Trial Amounts To Pre-Trial Conviction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail In Prohibition Case Proclamation Proceedings Can't Be Invoked In Cavalier Manner; Compliance With Section 82 CrPC Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Plaintiff Who Comes With Unclean Hands Disentitled To Relief: Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction Against 'Tirchi Topiwale' Remix In 'Dhurandhar' Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal & Others For "Calculated Campaign" To Scandalise Judiciary Through Social Media

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