Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 994 (MP)

Nandlal Digerse v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2016-11-04

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2016
ORDER : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/appellant Nandlal upon being aggrieved by a condition imposed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara while passing the order for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Appeal No.214/2015. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case are as follows: Respondent/complainant Gopal Oil Industries Pandurna filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused/petitioner Nandlal alleging dis-honour of two cheques in the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- and 2,25,000/- respectively, issued by the petitioner. 3. After the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class Pandurna, District Chhindwara convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,15,000/-. He was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months in default of payment of fine. The petitioner/accused preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 8.9.2015 in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara and also filed an application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence as also for suspension of payment of amount of compensation till disposal of the appeal. By impugned order dated 6.10.2015, learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara suspended the execution of sentence and realization of 80% of the amount of compensation on the condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the amount of compensation till 4.11.2015. 4. The petitioner has assailed the imposition of condition of deposit 20% of the amount of compensation in the trial Court on the ground that it is too harsh and onerous and would practically result in denial of bail to the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is too poor to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- before the trial Court in order to avail benefit of bail; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be exempted from deposit of 20% of the total amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the appellate Court was being eminently reasonable in directing the deposit of only 20% of the total amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the appellate Court was being eminently reasonable in directing the deposit of only 20% of the total amount of compensation. However, the petitioner is trying to avoid depositing even that amount for as long as he can. It has been submitted that if the realization of even 20% amount of compensation is suspended, the success of the respondent before the trial Court would go in vain. 6. In this regard, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Private Ltd 2001 (2) SCC 416 may profitably be referred to. In aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had observed as hereunder: "We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lakhs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed." 7. It may be noted in this regard that in the case of Stanny Felix Pinto (supra) as well, the appellate Court had directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation and the Supreme Court had held that there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposition of such a condition. It was further observed that in the case of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that a part of the fine is remitted within the certain period. The same course has been adopted by the appellate Court. In the instant case. It was further observed that in the case of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that a part of the fine is remitted within the certain period. The same course has been adopted by the appellate Court. In the instant case. As such no fault can be found with the approach of the appellate Court. Thus, this is neither a case of abuse of process of the Court nor is it case where interference is warranted to secure ends of justice. 8. Consequently, this miscellaneous criminal case deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.