Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

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

Similar News