Application under Section 389(2) CrPC seeking suspension of an appellate order directing the applicant to deposit 40% of the imposed fine after conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that Section 148 NI Act does not bar such appellate jurisdiction and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112810
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 389(2) No. - 1 of 2024
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Alias Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Bhaskar Parihar,Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh,Umapati Lal
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
carefully.
Order Date :- 15.7.2024 safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the Sessions Judge's order requiring deposit of 40% of the fine under Section 148 NI Act during pending appeal?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Alias Pappu
State of U.P.
Opposite Party no.2 (complainant)
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
