Case title: P Sreenivasan vs. Babu Raj and State of Kerala.
Case no.: CRL. M.C. NO. 1077 and 558 OF 2024.
Decided on: 21.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1077 of 2024 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 558 of 2024 in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The cases were presented by the Public Prosecutor, Sri Alex M. Thombra, on the same day for admission on 21.03.2024.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1077 of 2024 pertains to an order dated 04.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2216 of 2023 in C.R.A.No.149 of 2023 of District Court & Sessions Court, Manjeri.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 558 of 2024 relates to an order dated 01.01.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.525 of 2023 of Additional District Court & Sessions Court (Violence Against Women & Children), Ernakulam.
The trial court had directed the deposit of a percentage of the compensation amount ordered under Section 148 of the N.I. Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act), which empowers the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court in an appeal against conviction under Section 138.
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the power of the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial court pending appeals challenging a conviction and sentence.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants argued that the orders issued by the Appellate Court lacked proper justification as they did not contain any reasons to support the imposition of the deposit condition as outlined in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They contended that the Appellate Court should provide clear and valid reasons for requiring the deposit, especially considering situations where such a deposit might be unjust or could potentially deprive the appellant of their right to appeal. The appellants sought a more transparent and reasoned approach in the application of Section 148.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, likely represented by the Public Prosecutor, supported the decisions made by both the trial court and the Appellate Court. They emphasized the legal validity and necessity of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates the deposit of a minimum percentage of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court in cases of appeal. The respondents likely argued that such a deposit requirement is essential to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent frivolous appeals, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal process and the sanctity of cheque transactions.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court’s analysis focused on interpreting Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in light of precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari. The court emphasized that the Appellate Court has discretion under Section 148 to order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, but exceptions could be made with specific reasons recorded if such a deposit would be unjust or impede the right to appeal.
In the judgment, the court decided to set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Court due to the lack of reasons supporting the findings therein. The court directed the Appellate Court to pass fresh orders in the petitions filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the importance of providing reasons to support decisions made regarding the deposit requirement under Section 148. The court’s decision aimed to ensure transparency and clarity in the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court in matters related to deposit requirements pending appeals against conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
