Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Hiralal Barwal, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the learned Magistrate and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the complainant, Kamalnarayan Jaiswal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and suspended the substantive sentence on condition that the petitioner deposit 50% of the compensation amount within two months from the order dated 23.7.2013. The petitioner challenged this condition by filing a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner argued that the condition was unjustified and contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., which held that while suspending sentence, the appellate court cannot impose a condition of pre-deposit of compensation. The High Court agreed, noting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had imposed the condition despite being aware of the Supreme Court's ruling, citing the petitioner's conduct during trial and refusal to accept statutory notice. The High Court held that such a condition is not permissible under Section 389 CrPC and set aside the condition, directing the appellate court to proceed with the appeal without insisting on the deposit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Suspension of Sentence - Section 389 CrPC - Condition of Pre-deposit - The appellate court while suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC cannot impose a condition requiring the accused to deposit 50% of the compensation amount awarded under Section 357 CrPC, as such condition is not warranted by law and is contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dilip Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 B Cr C 472 (SC). The court held that the condition was unjustified and set it aside. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court can impose a condition of depositing 50% of the compensation amount while suspending the substantive sentence under Section 389 CrPC in a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, and directed the appellate court to proceed with the appeal without insisting on such deposit.
Law Points
- Suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC cannot be conditioned on pre-deposit of compensation in NI Act cases
- Dilip Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. followed
