Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 143 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. Deswal vs Virender Gandhi on 29 May, 2019
9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the
appellants,realize relying upon Section 357(2) of the
Cr.P.C. that once the appeal against the order of
conviction is preferred, fine is not recoverable pending
appeal and therefore such an order of deposit of 25% of
the fine ought not to have been passed and in support
of the above reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Dilip S. Dhanukar (supra) is
concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The opening
word of amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is that
"notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure.....". Therefore irrespective of the
provisions Hanuka of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
pending appeal before the first appellate court,
challenging the order of conviction and sentence 20
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the appellate court is
conferred with the power to direct the appellant
to deposit such sum pending appeal which shall be
a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded
by the trial Court."
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 389 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col S.S Deswal ... vs Virender Gandhi on 24 April, 2019
9.2 It is further submitted that present petition is itself not
maintainable and the prayers made by the applicants-accused
herein are required to be rejected in the light of ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal and
Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC 341. That
considering the intent of the legislation and the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the condition supposed to be Imposed.
while suspending the sentence by the Appellate Court is a
"minimum" 20% of the fine/penalty imposed by the Ld. Lower
Court. That the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the
provisions of Section 357(2) of CrPC would have no applicability to
the proceedings under the NI Act and that further the word "may"
in Section 148 of the NI Act is to be read as "shall and that a
direction not to deposit any amount is an exception for which
special reasons are to be assigned. The deponent submits that the
applicant has not brought anything on record to indicate the
Page 14 of 28
Downloaded on : Wed Aug 25 07:44:23 IST 2021
R/CR.MA/18334/2020 JUDGMENT
special reasons why such an order is required to be passed and in
fact the facts and circumstances and the conduct of {ne applicant
in fact indicate that the order passed by the Ld, Sessions Judge is
in fact required to be enhanced, for which the Respondent No. 2
has already moved an appropriate application. That on bare
interpretation of the prayer of the present application sought by
the applicants herein, the same is in stark contradiction of
provisions of the NI Act and guidelines laid down by the Apex
Court.
1