Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 201 (AP)

A. Eresha v. A. Eresha

2020-03-05

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the order dated 26-02-2019 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 90 of 2020 in Crl. Appeal No. 15 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed by the trial Court within one week from the date of the order for his release on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State. 3. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 417 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- within two months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved thereby, he has preferred an appeal to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. Along with the appeal, he has filed a petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of execution of sentence imposed against him. The said petition is disposed of by the impugned order by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, suspending the execution of sentence till the disposal of appeal and ordered to release the petitioner on bail on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as ordered by the trial Court within one week from the date of the order, on execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 4. Aggrieved by the said condition of depositing 25% of the compensation amount within one week from the date of the said order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the same. 5. Obviously, the said condition to deposit 25% of the compensation amount was imposed by the appellate Court invoking Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Obviously, the said condition to deposit 25% of the compensation amount was imposed by the appellate Court invoking Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act envisages that the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court and as per Clause (2) of Section 148, the said amount shall be deposited within 60 days from the date of the order or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. 6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the compensation amount is contrary to the mandate of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act which says that only 20% of the compensation amount can be ordered to be deposited in the trial Court at the time of suspending the execution of sentence and granting bail to the petitioner. He also submits that Clause (2) of Section 148 also provides 60 days period and further 30 days period to deposit the said amount. So, he would submit that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court is contrary to Section 148(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. As can be seen from Section 148, what is stated in the Section is that a sum which shall be minimum of 20% of fine or compensation amount can be ordered to be deposited. So, it does not mean that the Court cannot order to deposit more than 20% of the fine or compensation amount. As per the Section, the Court cannot order to deposit less than 20% of the fine or compensation amount as the words "minimum 20%" is used in the Section. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the appellate Court in directing to deposit 25% of the compensation amount is contrary to the mandate in the Section. 8. However, a reading of Section 148 shows that the impugned order whereunder 25% of the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited within one week runs contrary to Section 148(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since 60 days time which may be extended to 90 days is provided in the Section. 9. 8. However, a reading of Section 148 shows that the impugned order whereunder 25% of the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited within one week runs contrary to Section 148(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since 60 days time which may be extended to 90 days is provided in the Section. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Ajay Vinodchandra Shaw v. State of Maharashtra 2019 LawSuit (Bom) 415, whereunder at para-27 of the judgment, the Court modified the order imposing a condition to deposit 25% amount out of total compensation directing him to deposit 20% of the total amount of the compensation within 90 days. 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of modifying the condition imposed by the appellate Court in para-11 of the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the trial Court within 60 days from the date of this order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.