Ravi Khanna v. Inderpal Suri Since Deceased
!"
# $%&%!'( )** +% ,- ''
*** % %!' .
/&*
'# .0 23.% &%'$ # $ & #
-.!34- -%& 5&
*** &0!'# ' &
( 65
* 2
7 * 5
$%
& $'
(
)(
!
*Ravi Khanna Vs. Inderpal Suri through his LRs etc.+
,- & ! %#
-- . *& %
+/ ./ 0
!
## !
3 ! !( !!
!!
%
#!
! ./
,- & %
!! 0 !
!
% # "
4 #!
#
!
! ' -
6
#!
! # "!
7 #!
# # 4
8 & ,55-)-
# ' -
# 0!!
4 90 0 #!
8 ! 4
# ## -
# 4 *: %+ 6 #!
!
# # 0
3 ! ! ! ! 6 ;#!
!
#!
,- &%
" $!
8
,
# #! ##
2 #
! ! # #
8
! #! =51
#
0
#
! ## !
3 ! !( !!
!!
, > !
inter alia,
<
! <#
!
"#$%&
' %
(#) *
$+,-. )
/)#! "+0 )
2
.
0 ###
! ! %
!!
2 # 7
!
! <#
0! "33! "0.1 9 # 4 5 $ 4 4 5 6 + 01& 7 01& )
, + )
, 2
&
,
# / #
! "33! ",1 !
!!
0 2 # 8
0 " ?
.supra/ "
@4
;
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of
deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded." ) '!
' %
+ .supra/ " A 4 4 #!
0
4
.supra/ 7 #
0 " ?
+ .supra/
;
"In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr.P.C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a passport is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg. 133). This
9 principle is expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing."
% 0 ! 0
2
# # 4
;2 #
# # 2 # 8#
$ !
.supra/ >
# 0
+ .supra/ 0 #
# :
;
vishnu 7 4( B(& 7 !
B(&