Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the relevant documents which are placed on record R/SCR.A/404/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022 with the separate paper-book and after referring to the said documents and the depositions of the concerned witnesses recorded by the concerned trial Court, contended that though the complainant has failed to prove his case before the concerned trial Court, the present petitioner accused has been wrongly convicted by the concerned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner is having a very good case on merits and therefore, he urged that the impugned order passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% amount of the cheque be quashed and set aside.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued the case of the petitioner on merits by contending that the concerned trial Court has wrongly convicted the present petitioner. In support of the said contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions.

(1) Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54 (2) Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 (3) Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 3.3 After referring to the aforesaid decisions, it is once again contended that the petitioner is having very good case on merits and the trial Court has R/SCR.A/404/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022 wrongly convicted him and, therefore, it can be considered to be an exceptional circumstance, for which, this Court may exempt the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of the cheque as directed by the concerned appellate Court. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that this petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

- accused to deposit sum which shall be a minimum of 20% amount of fine or compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is required to be purposefully interpreted in such a manner that it would serve the objects and reasons of not only amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act but also Section 138 of the N.I. Act and such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the objects and reasons of the amendment in section 148 of the N.I. Act and also Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not at all stated that while passing the order under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the appellate Court has to consider the case of the appellant - accused on merits that whether he is wrongly convicted by the concerned trial Court or not.

10. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid decisions. However, this Court is of the view that it is not open for this Court to examine the case of the petitioner on merits and to give prima-facie finding that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the concerned trial R/SCR.A/404/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022 Court and more particularly, when the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the appellate Court. Thus, the aforesaid decisions which are rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits in a particular facts of a case, would not render any assistance to the present petitioner and more particularly, when this Court is considering the validity of the order passed by the appellate Court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the present petition and it is nothing but an attempt to delay the deposit of amount as directed by the appellate Court and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.