Irfan vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45956

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1452 of 2025

Revisionist :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kiran Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.1.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2025 (Irfan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) whereby, the appellate court while exercising its power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had directed the revisionist to deposit Rs. 2,70,000/- out of the total fine of Rs. 13,50,000/- imposed by the trial court.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has raised solitary argument before this Court that the revisionist had issued four different cheques to Opposite Party No. 2 and since all the four cheques were dishonored, different complaint cases were filed by Opposite Party No. 2 against the revisionist and in the said cases four different orders have been passed whereby, the revisionist had been convicted and fine had been imposed against him. It has further been argued that if the revisionist is compelled to deposit 20% of the amount of fine in each criminal appeal out of the four criminal appeals filed by him, it would be difficult for him to pursue those appeals as he is not in a position to deposit the said amount.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, in an appeal filed by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be minimum 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. It has further been

¶10

argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State that the appellate court itself has shown mercy to the revisionist and had directed for depositing only 20% of the fine which is at the minimum side which can be done by the appellate court.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision.

¶12

I find that Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 empowers the appellate court to direct the appellant to deposit such amount which shall be minimum 20% of the fine imposed by the trial court for hearing his appeal. For ready reference Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is extracted as under :-

¶13

"[148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.—

¶14

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 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:

¶15

Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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:

¶18

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.]"

¶19

From bare perusal of the Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it is patently manifest that the minimum

¶20

limit had been imposed on the appellate court that it can order the appellant to deposit minimum 20% of the fine imposed by the trial court and in the present case the appellate court had directed only for deposit of the minimum permissible amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶21

This Court is of the view that the appellate court had already shown mercy to the revisionist and had directed only for depositing minimum permissible amount i.e. 20% of the fine imposed by the trial court and therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the order impugned in this criminal revision on the ground that there are four appeals and revisionist has to deposit the amount, directed by the appellate court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in four different matters.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Gaurav

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobhnath Bharti vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shrihari Agrihari Alias Hari Gupta vs Smt. Parul Agrahari and Others

Sri Hari Agrahari vs State of U.P. Thru. District Probation Officer, Collectorate, Lucknow and Others

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalchand Rajbhar @ Lal Chand vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

M/S Aman Electricals through Its Proprietor and Another vs State of U.P. and Another