Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2731 (KER)

Mohankumar v. K. Jayakumar

2025-10-31

C.S.DIAS

body2025
ORDER : C.S. Dias, J. The petitioner, aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed in S.T. No.72/2020 by the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Chittur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for committing the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for brevity, ‘Act’), has preferred Annexure A2 appeal before the Court of Session, Palakkad (Appellate Court). He also filed a petition to suspend the substantive sentence and fine imposed on him. 2. By Annexure A3 order, the Appellate Court suspended the sentence on condition that the petitioner deposits ten per cent of the fine amount before the Trial Court. The petitioner assails the order on the ground that it is against the principles laid down by this Court in Sreenivasan P. v. Babu Raj ( 2024 (2) KHC 621 ) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, [ (2023) 10 SCC 446 ]. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881, which empowers the Appellate Court to direct the deposit of such sum pending the appeal, reads as follows: Section 148 [Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent. of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court: Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under Section 143A. (2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. (2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. (3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal: Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.] 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in Sreenivasan P.’s case (supra), after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held thus: “8. In our view, a reading of Section 148 of the N.I. Act as an exception to the general principles of suspension of sentence by an Appellate Court as contained in Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., and in the backdrop of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari (supra) would result in the following interpretation as regards the nature and manner of exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act: (a) Under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the Appellate Court has a discretion to either order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court or to waive such deposit. In either event, since it would be exercising a statutory discretion, the Appellate Court would be legally obliged to furnish reasons for its decision so as to unambiguously indicate that its discretion was exercised keeping in mind the object of the statutory provision. (b) If the Appellate Court, pursuant to the exercise of its discretion, finds that the appellant is required to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court pending disposal of the appeal, then the amount directed to be deposited cannot be less than an amount equivalent to 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. (c) If the Appellate Court chooses to direct the appellant to deposit any sum which is more than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, then it would be obliged to give further reasons for directing the deposit of such amounts as are in excess of the minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court”. 6. The essence of the law laid down in Sreenivasan P.’s case is that the Appellate Court, while considering an application to suspend a sentence, may order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine amount or waive such deposit. Yet, the order shall give reasons for the decision. 7. The petitioner contends that the Appellate Court has failed to give reasons in the impugned order and is, therefore, in violation of the principles in Sreenivasan P.’s case. 8. In Sreenivasan P.’s case, this Court has not directed the Appellate Courts to pass a detailed order while considering an application filed under Section 148 of the Act. Instead, the Appellate Court is only directed to give reasons for its decision. 9. Therefore, the question is what is meant by the ‘reasons’ in the context of the decision in Sreenivasan P.’s case. 10. It is trite that reasons are the heartbeat of every order. 11. In Union of India (UOI) v. Mohan Lal Capoor [ (1973) 2 SCC 836 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi- judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." 12. To put it pithily, a reasoned order must speak for itself. It should reveal the reasons in the petition, the law on the point, and the rationale behind the conclusion. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner, while seeking suspension of sentence, has not stated any exceptional circumstances in the petition warranting waiver of the statutory deposit. 14. To put it pithily, a reasoned order must speak for itself. It should reveal the reasons in the petition, the law on the point, and the rationale behind the conclusion. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner, while seeking suspension of sentence, has not stated any exceptional circumstances in the petition warranting waiver of the statutory deposit. 14. The Appellate court, on finding that there are no reasons stated in the petition to waive the deposit of the fine amount, in exercise of its discretionary power, directed the petitioner to deposit ten per cent of the fine amount. The Appellate Court has explicitly stated in the order that there were no exceptional circumstances to suspend the sentence unconditionally. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit ten per cent of the fine amount. This reasoning, though concise, satisfies the legal requirement of a reasoned order and reflects due application of mind. 15. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the said order warranting the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Crl. M.C, being devoid of any merits, deserves only to be dismissed. 16. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as Annexure A3 order was passed on 21.12.2024 and the time period to deposit ten per cent of the fine amount has lapsed, the petitioner may be granted a breathing time to deposit the said amount. I find the request to be justifiable and reasonable. Accordingly, while upholding Annexure A3 order, I extend the time period fixed in the impugned order, to deposit ten per cent of the fine amount, by a further period of one month from today.