Dismissed

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Yadab v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./2613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing him to repay Rs. 2,08,000 to an acquitted appellant. The High Court held that since the acquittal stood and the revision was sub-judice, the lower court had acted within its powers and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed; the impugned order directing repayment was upheld.

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Yadab Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.2613 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2613 of 2022

¶4

Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Yadab, aged about 46 years, son of late Sahadeo Gope, resident of Central Hospital Naisarai, Qtr. No. 84, P.O.-Ramgarh Cant, P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Sanjay Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Satya Narayan Yadav, resident of Village- Alampur, P.O. & P.S.- Phesar, Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar)

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Nand Sahay, Advocate

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh has directed the petitioner to repay the released amount of Rs.2,08,000/- to the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition within 60 days from the date of that order with the bank interest applicable for the financial year 2021-22 in connection with Complaint Case No.1918 of 2015.

¶16

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.2613 of 2022

¶18

The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2- Sanjay Yadav was convicted in Complaint Case No.1918 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act. He preferred Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. During the pendency of the said Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021, the appellant deposited 20% of the amount mentioned in the cheque i.e. Rs.2,08,000/- as per the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in terms of Section 148 (1) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and the deposited amount was released in favour of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh allowed the Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 and set aside the conviction of Sanjay Yadav who is the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition. Further, in terms of Section 148 (3) on 12.07.2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh passed the impugned order directing the petitioner who was the respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 and the complainant in the complaint case to repay the released amount of Rs.2,08,000/- to the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition within 60 days from the date of the said order with the bank interest applicable for the financial year 2021.-22.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No.700 of 2022 before this Court challenging the final judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 which is sub-judice. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that

¶20

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.2613 of 2022

¶22

the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh without considering the pendency of the revision before this Court has passed the impugned order. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 12.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 be quashed.

¶23

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the impugned order as prayed for by the petitioner and submits that since there is no illegality in the impugned order, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 which reads as under:-

¶25

148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction .—(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:

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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:

¶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

¶30

¶31

Cr.M.P. No.2613 of 2022

¶32

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. (Emphasis supplied)

¶33

The proviso of Section 148 (3) envisages that in case of acquittal of the appellant, the court shall direct the complainant to repay amount released to the complainant with interest at bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year within 60 days from the date of order to be passed by the appellate court.

¶34

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as undisputedly, the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted consequent upon the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, and no order of pay has been passed in the Criminal Revision No.700 of 2022 claim to have been filed by the petitioner in this court, no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in passing the impugned order.

¶35

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶36

Consequently, the interim order if any passed in this case stands vacated.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22^nd March, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Yadab v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Yadab v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ashwath Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Avijit Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishun Raut and Ors. Vs Union of India through Administrator

Sofi Kuer Vs Most Bimla Kuer

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand