Maneet Dhawan v State of Haryana and another (P&H) 15-03-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 389 — Cheque bounce case — Conviction in — Appeal against — Suspension of sentence — Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days — Submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount equivalent to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation during the proceedings of trial and that the petitioner presently is facing a financial crunch and is unable to deposit another 20% though he has a good case on merits — Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time – If the petitioner or his counsel is not present on the dates fixed, it shall be open to the Lower Appellate Court to nominate any counsel from Free Legal Aid.
Ashok Aggarwal v State of U.T., Chandigarh and another (P&H) 11-02-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138,148 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389-Cheque bounce case — Conviction u/s 138 Nl Act – One year Rl and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation -Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed — Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.
Rajesh Kumar v Jaipal and another (P&H) 11-01-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138,148 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 –Cheque bounce case — Conviction u/s 138 Nl Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order — It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order — De hors finality being assignable to P-3’order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 — Cheque bounce case — Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of N.l. Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of — Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant — However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the Nl Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.
M/s Harihar Polymers and another v M/s Sabsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (P&H) 25-11-2021
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142, 145(2) – Cheque bounce case — Striking off evidence of complainant — Application of the petitioners/accused for striking off the evidence dismissed by Trial Court – Challenge to — In case the complainant is required to be re-examined, the Court needs to pass a specific order either on the application u/s 145(2) of the N.I. Act or suo moto by the Court – Trial Court has allowed the complainant for re-examination suo moto, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the stakes involved therein in view of the enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association’s case 2014 (5) SCC 590 and as such the application of the petitioners for striking off the evidence has rightly been dismissed — If the complainant is not allowed in the case at hand to file detailed affidavit, then the purpose and purport of the provisions contained in the N.I. Act would be rendered to be a nullity and the same would definitely prejudice the indefeasible rights of the complainant – Petition dismissed.
Harbir Singh v State of Haryana and another (P&H) 22-11-2021
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138,148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 389 — Conviction in Cheque bounce case – Noncompliance of 20% deposit of compensation order – Cancellation of bail — R.I. for a period of one year and to pay Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation and in default further R.I. for three months – Appellate court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days — Instead of depositing, the petitioner chose to file review and the same was dismissed, statutory period of 90 days for compliance elapsed — Consequently, petitioner’s bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State — After a period of about more than 2 % years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation — Petition dismissed.
