Dismissed

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul v. M/S Prefeb Engineering Private Limited through Amit Pangam and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2022WP/2963/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition challenging an appellate order requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of Rs. 1 Crore compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, noting that liability to pay cheque amount is a matter of merit for later consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; requirement to deposit 20% of compensation stands.

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul Vs M/S Prefeb Engineering… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI

¶2

Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2022.11.14 17:32:22 +0530

¶3

Tauseef Farooqui 36-WP.2963.2022.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2963 OF 2022

¶6

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul …Petitioner
V/s.

¶7

M/s. Prefeb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Through Amit Pangam & Anr. …Respondents

¶8

*****

¶9

Mr. Laxman Kanal a/w Divia Kanal for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ashish Chavan a/w Mr. Zishan Quazi for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.2 (State).

¶11

*****

¶12

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE:NOVEMBER 10, 2022

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.The Petitioner is original accused in a proceedings
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The
learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 16th March 2022,
convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and
to pay an amount of Rs.1 Crore towards compensation. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the order of imprisonment and
payment of compensation filed Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2022.

¶15

2.Learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 20th
June 2022 suspended the judgment and order passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai,

¶16

¶17

Tauseef Farooqui 36-WP.2963.2022.odt

¶18

subject to deposit of 20% of compensation within two (2) months.
The petitioner has filed present Petition challenging the order of
suspension which is subject to deposit of 20% of compensation.

¶19

3.Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the principal challenge in the Appeal is the amount
of compensation imposed by the learned Magistrate, and therefore,
it is not necessary for him to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount as directed by the learned Sessions Court. According to
him, the liability under Section 138 for which cheque was issued is
also subject matter of challenge in the Appeal.

¶20

4.At this stage, it is necessary to consider Section 148 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Sub-sections 1 and 2 of
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, reads as
under:

¶21

“(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 percent of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial Court:

¶22

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

¶23

(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or

Tauseef Farooqui

36-WP.2963.2022.odt

within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may
be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by
the appellant.

¶28

(3) …..

¶29

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.”

¶30

5.On perusal of the language of section, it is manifest
that the Appellate Court has power/duty to direct the Appellant to
deposit minimum of 20% of fine are compensation awarded by
Trial Court. In the facts of the case, the amount of compensation
directed to be paid is Rs.1 Crore. Therefore, learned Appellate
Judge in the light of mandate under Section 148 (1) of Section
148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has directed the
petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount, which is a minimum
amount which the appellant needs to deposit.

¶31

6.The liability to pay the amount of cheque is the matter
of merit, which the Appellate Court is required to consider at the
time of consideration of merits of Appeal. At the stage of deposit
of minimum of 20%, the Appellate Court cannot go into the aspect
as to whether the amount of liability under the cheque was less

Tauseef Farooqui

36-WP.2963.2022.odt

then the liability imposed by the Magistrate.

¶36

7.In that view of the matter, there is no manifest
perversity in the order nor the effect of impugned order resulted
into miscarriage of justice.

¶37

8.There is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is
therefore dismissed.

¶38

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶39

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul v. M/S Prefeb Engineering Private Limited through Amit Pangam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul v. M/S Prefeb Engineering Private Limited through Amit Pangam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Champaklal Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dadarao Abarao Raut and Ors. Vs Mumbai District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Dadarao Abarao Raut and Ors. Vs Mumbai District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Sanjao Dabre Vs State of Maharashtra

Anil M. Bande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra