The Branch Head v. P.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.No.19628 of 2020 The Branch Head, IDBI Bank, Neelamangalam Branch, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.
... Petitioner.
Vs.
P.Rajendran, S/o.Ponnusamy ... Respondent.
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2020 in C.A.No.17 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2020 in C.A.No.17 of 2020. For Petitioners : Mr.Ramalingam For Respondent : No appearance.
O R D E R
This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in the Suspension of Sentence Petition filed by the respondent without directing the respondent to deposit the amount as provided under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as the Act). 2.The respondent, who underwent trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court through judgment dated 28.08.2019. The trial Court had directed the respondent to pay the entire cheque amount as
compensation to the petitioner under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same,the respondent had filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, and had also sought for suspension of sentence. The appellate Court while suspending the sentence, did not impose the condition as mandated under Section 148 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 3.The respondent has been served with notice and his name has also been printed in the cause list and there is no representation either in person or through counsel. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the language used under Section 148 of the Act and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Vs.
Virender Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC 341 and submitted that the Court below ought to have directed the respondent to deposit a minimum of 20% of the cheque amount and this should have been made as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence. The learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the Court below to impose such a condition and on such deposit, the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the amount under Section 148(3) of the Act.
5.This Court finds a lot of force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court below completely lost sight of the mandate imposed under Section 148 of the Act which was brought in as an amendment in the year 2018 in order to ensure that the accused person who is convicted for the offence is made to deposit some amount for the purpose of contesting the appeal. This provision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the scope of the said provision has been dealt in detail in the judgment referred supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that this provision will apply even to those complaints which were filed prior to the amendment that took place in the year 2018. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in (2020) 2 Law Weekly 981.
6.In view of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the respondent to deposit 25% of the cheque amount before the trial Court in C.C.No.66 of 2018, within a period of 60 days from today. It is made clear that if such deposit is not made by the respondent, the suspension of sentence granted
by the appellate Court will stand automatically canceled. 7.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rm To The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
Crl.O.P.No.19628 of 2020 CO(RV) BDL/21/01/2021