Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 495 (RAJ)

Praveen Bansal v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-03

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Bhagwati, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material including the impugned orders on record. 2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 15th January, 2010, convicted Mohd. Saleem in the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years together with a fine of Rs. 9,50,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with this judgment, the accused respondent No. 2 Mohd. Saleem filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, who after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, suspended the sentence till the decision of the appeal. The petitioner prayed the court that the accused respondent No. 2 Mohd. Saleem may be directed to deposit the half of the amount of fine in the court but this prayer was dismissed. 3. Challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been made to the order dated 08.02.2010 whereby the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner Praveen Bansal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no condition with regard to depositing the half of the amount of fine has been imposed by the learned Additional Session Judge, whereas, it was necessary to be made in the interest of justice. On being asked, as to whether imposing condition with regard to depositing the half of the amount of fine in the court was mandatory, learned counsel conceded that it was not mandatory but as a matter of practice, while suspending the sentence, the Appellate Court usually directs the accused appellant to deposit the half of the amount of fine in the court. He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 528 . 5. He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 528 . 5. It is relevant to record that while sentencing the sentence of the accused, it is nowhere required in N.I. Act that the accused in appeal shall be asked to deposit the half of the amount of fine, imposed by the learned trial court. When the provisions with regard to directing the accused to deposit 50% of the amount of fine is not mandatory and exclusively discretionary, then in such a situation, how can the court be asked to imposed such a condition. In the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) it is nowhere mentioned that it shall be mandatory for the Appellate Court to direct the accused in appeal to deposit the 50% of the amount of fine in the court, at the time of passing an order with regard to suspension of sentence under Section 339 of Criminal Procedure Code On the contrary, Hon'ble Apex Court held that fine for an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be imposed only in terms of the provisions of the Act. When fine is not imposed, compensation can be directed to be paid for loss or injury caused to the complainant by reason of commission of such offence. It has also been held that a fortiori a part of the amount of compensation may be directed to be deposited, but the same must be a reasonable amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that an order may not be passed which the appellant cannot comply with resulting in him being sent to prison. Nowhere it has been suggested by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Appellate court shall be required to impose a condition while suspending the sentence directing the accused to deposit 50% of the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial court. Impugned order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur city, Jaipur may be unreasonable from the point of view of the petitioner Praveen Bansal but it certainly not illegal and to my firm view, it warrants no intervention. 6. Impugned order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur city, Jaipur may be unreasonable from the point of view of the petitioner Praveen Bansal but it certainly not illegal and to my firm view, it warrants no intervention. 6. The powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are sparingly used in extraordinary cases where there is apprehension of the process of court being abused or they could be invoked to meet the ends of justice. It is nowhere found that the process of court has been abused by the learned Additional Session Judge. I do not find any reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code so as to allow the petition. There being no substance in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons state above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the petitioner being bereft of merits stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.