Allowed

The Branch Head v. Muthulakshmi.S

Madras HC18 Mar 2021CRL OP/19775/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a Criminal Original Petition challenging an appellate order that suspended sentence without requiring a deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court directed the respondent to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within 90 days, threatening cancellation of the suspension if not complied with.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to deposit 20% of cheque amount within 90 days; failure to do so results in automatic cancellation of sentence suspension.

The Branch Head Vs Muthulakshmi.S — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.03.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020
The Branch Head,
IDBI Bank,
Neelamangalam Branch,
Kallakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District. ... Petitioner.
Vs.
Mrs.Muthulakshmi S ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2020 in C.A.No.10 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2020 in C.A.No.10 of 2020.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Elayaraj Kumar For Ramalingam Associates For Respondent : Mr.A.Rajkumar

¶9

Page No.1/6

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by

¶14

the Court below in the Suspension of Sentence Petition filed by the respondent without directing the respondent to deposit the amount as provided under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶15

1881 (hereinafter called as the Act).

¶16

2.The respondent, who underwent trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court through judgment dated 28.08.2019. The trial Court had directed the respondent to pay the entire cheque amount as compensation to the petitioner under Section 357(3) of Code of

¶17

Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same,the respondent had filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, and had also sought for suspension of sentence. The appellate Court

¶18

while suspending the sentence, did not impose the condition as

¶19

Page No.2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020

¶22

mandated under Section 148 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶23

present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon

¶25

the language used under Section 148 of the Act and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in ( 2019) 11 SCC 341

¶26

and submitted that the Court below ought to have directed the respondent to deposit a minimum of 20% of the cheque amount and this should have been made as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence. The learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the Court below to impose such a condition and on such deposit,

¶27

the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the amount under

¶28

Section 148(3) of the Act.

¶29

Page No.3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶33

respondent.

¶34

This Court finds a lot of force in the submission made by

¶35

the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court below completely

¶36

lost sight of the mandate imposed under Section 148 of the Act which was brought in as an amendment in the year 2018 in order to ensure that the accused person who is convicted for the offence is made to deposit some amount for the purpose of contesting the appeal. This provision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the scope of the said provision has been dealt in detail in the judgment referred supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that this provision will apply even to those

¶37

complaints which were filed prior to the amendment that took place in the year 2018. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi

¶38

Page No.4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020

¶41

reported in ( 2020) 2 Law Weekly 981 .

¶42

6.In view of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to

¶43

the respondent to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the trial Court in C.C.No.90 of 2017, within a period of 90 days from

¶44

today. It is made clear that if such deposit is not made by the respondent, the suspension of sentence granted by the appellate Court will stand automatically canceled.

¶45

7.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions.

¶46

22.03.2021

¶47

Note:Upload order copy by 24.03.2021. Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rka

¶48

Page No.5/6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.19775 of 2020