Dismissed

Mr Bijay Agarwal v. M/S Medilines

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024CRL.P/13095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal petitions filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an interim order of the First Appellate Court. The order had conditioned the suspension of the petitioner's sentence on depositing 20% of the fine. The Court held this direction was lawful under S. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order imposing 20% fine deposit were dismissed.

Mr Bijay Agarwal Vs M/S Medilines — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13095 OF 2023

¶7

c/w

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13153 OF 2023

¶9

IN CRL.P.No.13095/2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. BIJAY AGARWAL, AGED 63 YEARS, EX-DIRECTOR OF M/S GEE PEE INFOTECH PVT. LTD., REG, OFFICE AT NO.34/1Q, BALLYGUNGE CIRCLE ROAD, KOLKATTA – 700 020.

¶12

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R BANNUR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S. MEDILINES, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT NO.42, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MARKENDESHWARA NAGAR, BINNYPET, BANGALORE – 560 053.

¶16

SRI. DINESH KUMAR JAIN, AGE 62 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S MEDILINES, OFFICE AT NO.42,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶18

1^ST MAIN ROAD, MARKENDESHWARA NAGAR, BINNYPET, BANGALORE – 560 053.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO

¶21

QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.11.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1537/2023 PASSED IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED U/S 389 OF CR.P.C. ONLY IN SO FAR AS IMPOSING THE CONDITION OF DEPOSITING 20 PERCENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT BY THE PETITIONER WITHIN TWO MONTHS AND ETC.

¶22

IN CRL.P.No.13153/2023

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

MR. BIJAY AGARWAL EX-DIRECTOR OF M/S GEE PEE INFOTECH PVT LTD., REG, OFFICE AT NO.34/1Q, BALLYGUNGE CIRCLE ROAD, KOLKATTA-700020.

¶25

…PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R BANNUR., ADVOCATE)

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶29

AND:

¶30

M/S MEDILINES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT NO.42, 1^st MAIN ROAD, MARKENDESHWARA NAGAR, BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560053 SRI DINESH KUMAR JAIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S MEDILINES, OFFICE AT NO.42, 1^st MAIN ROAD, MARKENDESHWARA NAGAR, BINNYPET, BANGALORE-560053.

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.11.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1536/2023 PASSED ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED U/S 389 OF CR.P.C. ONLY IN SO FAR AS IMPOSING THE CONDITION OF DEPOSITING 20% OF THE FINE AMOUNT BY THE PETITIONER WITHIN TWO MONTHS AND ETC.

¶33

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶35

ORDER

¶36

These criminal petitions are filed by the

¶37

petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.Nos.1537/2023 and 1536/2023 for having imposed condition to deposit 20% of fine amount on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with accused No.1-Company faced the trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act') and was found guilty and convicted by the learned Magistrate in C.C.Nos.13938/2013 and 13937/2013 vide order dated 30.09.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached learned Sessions Judge under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence. The First Appellate Court

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶41

considered the application filed by the petitioner and suspended the sentence for a period of three months subject to condition that he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety and to deposit 20% of the fine amount. The same is challenged before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a signatory to the cheque and the cheque has been issued towards discharge of alleged legal debt and not in his individual capacity. The trial Court, without verifying the proviso to Section 148 of the N.I.Act, has erroneously imposed the condition directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount. He further submits that the Company has been dissolved and the petitioner is not representing the Company. Further, the petitioner is unable to deposit 20% of fine amount and has contended he is not capable of paying any such amount. Hence, prayed for quashing the order.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no speaking order and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence also is not produced before this Court for having

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶45

taken serious contentions in the application except filing for suspension of sentence. The First Appellate Court passed the order dated 10.11.2023 imposing the condition that the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety and to deposit 20% of the fine amount while suspending the sentence and it cannot be said that there is no speaking order by the First Appellate Court.

¶46

On perusal of Section 148 of the N.I.Act, for suspending the sentence, the First Appellate Court shall impose minimum 20% of the fine amount as compensation awarded by the trial Court. Such being the case, in this case, the trial Court imposed fine amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and cheque amount is Rs.25,00,000/-. Learned counsel has not pleaded in the application regarding incapacity for making payment of cheque amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. The petitioner has not at all deposited any interim compensation under Section 143-A of the N.I.Act. However, after conviction in the appeal, the First

¶47

Appellate Court imposed 20% of fine amount as interim compensation. Of course, the petitioner may have good grounds for acquittal, the same cannot be considered while

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:1007 CRL.P No. 13095 of 2023 c/w CRL.P. No. 13153 of 2023

¶49

suspending the sentence and once the petitioner is convicted, the First Appellate Court has power to impose minimum 20% of the interim compensation payable within two months. Such being the case, there is no error in imposing condition to deposit 20% of fine amount. If at all the amount shall be released, the petitioner shall urge not to release to the respondent-Company. This Court has already considered similar view in various cases and dismissed the application filed for suspension of sentence. Such being the case, the petitions are devoid of merits. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.

¶50

In view of the above, pending I.As do not survive for consideration.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mr Bijay Agarwal v. M/S Medilines

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Bijay Agarwal v. M/S Medilines

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

Smt Mumtaz Khatun Vs M/S Suryashine Builders

Sri. Akshay Gangadhar Vs M/S Joni Films

Girish @ Kunigalgiri Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Iranna Mallikarjuna Milanatti Vs the State by

Mr T H Krishnadas Vs M/S Form Space Reality LLP

Sri. D M Vijay Vs Smt. M Vasanta Lakshmi @ Umavati