20% amount in the cheque bounce case not mandatory

youtube.com/@s...
• ਚੈੱਕ ਬਾਉਂਸ ਦੇ ਕੇਸ ਕਿਵੇ...
20% amount in the cheque bounce case not mandatory NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2741 OF 2023(@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4927 OF 2023)JAMBOO BHANDARI …………APPELLANT(S) VERSUSM.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. …..RESP JUDGMENTABHAY S. OKA, J.Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The appellants in these two appeals were the accused beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate who tried them on a complaint filedby the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”). The learnedMagistrate convicted the appellants and directed them to pay thecheque amount of Rs. 2,52,36,985/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum. An appeal was preferred by the appellants before theSessions Court. Relying upon Section 148 of the N.I. Act, theSessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) subject to conditionof appellants depositing 20% of the amount of compensationVide the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the orderof the Sessions Court.4. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in thecase of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi 1. The High Court proceeded on the footing that,as this Court has interpreted the word “may” appearing in Section148 as “shall”, the relief of suspension of sentence under Section389 of the Cr.P.C. can be granted only by directing the accused todeposit minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount. 5. The paragraph ‘8’ of the decision of this Court in the case ofSurinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others1 readsthus: -“8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of theappellants that even considering the language used inSection 148 of the NI Act as amended, the appellate court“may” order the appellant to deposit such sum which shallbe a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded bythe trial court and the word used is not “shall” andtherefore the discretion is vested with the firstappellate court has construed it as mandatory, whichaccording to the learned Senior Advocate for theappellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section148 of the NI Act as amended is concerned, considering theamended Section 148 of the NI Act as a whole to be readwith the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendingSection 148 of the NI Act, the word used is “may”, it isgenerally to be construed as a “rule” or “shall” and notto direct to deposit by the appellate court is anexception for which special reasons are to be assigned.Therefore amended Section 148 of the NI Act confers powerupon the appellate court to pass an order pending appealto direct the appellant-accused to deposit the sum whichshall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensationeither on an application filed by the original complainantor even on the application file by the appellant-accusedunder Section 389 CrPC to suspend the sentence. Theaforesaid is required to be construed considering the factthat as per the amended Section 148 of the NI Act, aminimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by thetrial court is directed to be deposited and that suchamount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days fromthe date of the order, or within such further period notexceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellatecourt for sufficient cause shown by the appellant.Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the NI Act ispurposively interpreted in Section 148 of the NI Act, butalso Section 138 of the NI Act. The Negotiable InstrumentsAct has been amended from time to time so as to provide,inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to theoffence of the dishonour of cheques. So as to see that dueto delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of thedishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals andobtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was causedto the payee of a dishonoured cheque, who has to spendconsiderable time and resources in the court proceedingsto realise the value of the cheque and having observedthat such delay has compromised the sanctity of the chequetransactions. Parliament has thought it fit to amendSection 148 of the NI Act. Therefore, such a purposiveinterpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects andReasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act andalso Section 138 of the NI Act.(underline supplied)”6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretationshould be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally,Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition ofdeposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where theAppellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20%will be unjust or imposing such a condition will