-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court declared that an order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is interlocutory in nature and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court dismissed a revision petition (Crl.R.C.No.766 of 2019) filed by Bapuji Murugesan challenging an order issued by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The petitioner contended that the order failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation/fine amount, as stipulated in Section 148 of the Act.
Quoting from the judgment, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Bijesh Thomas, relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Ors. vs. Virender Gandhi and Anr., emphasizing that the deposit under Section 148 is obligatory and should be 20% of the compensation/fine amount, rather than the cheque amount.
However, the respondent's counsel, Mr. G.R. Hari, argued that the order in question was interlocutory and therefore not maintainable for revision. He cited a Kerala High Court judgment in Samuel George, Maliyekkal Bunglow vs. State of Kerala and Anr., which held that orders under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are interlocutory and not subject to revision.
After considering the arguments and reviewing relevant case law, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy concluded that the order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was neither a final nor an intermediate order. The court held that the revision against the order was not maintainable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While dismissing the revision petition, Justice Chakravarthy granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if they wished to challenge the order through appropriate proceedings.
Decided on: 21.06.2022
Bapuji Murugesan VS Mythili Rajagopalan
