Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by convicts under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenging the direction to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The criminal complaints were filed before the amendment to Section 148 of the NI Act came into force on 1 September 2018, but the appeals were filed after that date. The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the first appellate court suspended the sentence but directed deposit of 25% of the compensation under the amended Section 148. The High Court upheld this order. The appellants argued that the amendment should not apply retrospectively to complaints filed before its enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the amendment is procedural and applies to all appeals pending on or after the enforcement date, as no vested right is affected. The Court clarified that the appellate court has discretion under Section 389 CrPC to impose conditions, and Section 148 NI Act only prescribes a minimum deposit if such condition is imposed. The direction to deposit 25% was within the court's discretion and not excessive. The appeals were dismissed, and the order to deposit 25% was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 148 Amendment - Retrospective Application - Amendment Act No. 20/2018 to Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is procedural in nature and applies to all appeals pending on or after the date of enforcement, regardless of when the complaint was filed - The amendment does not create any vested right in the appellant and is intended to expedite recovery and prevent delay tactics - Held that the appellate court can direct deposit of minimum 20% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspension of sentence (Paras 10-15).
B) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Condition of Deposit - Section 389 CrPC read with Section 148 NI Act - The appellate court has discretion under Section 389 CrPC to impose conditions for suspension of sentence, and Section 148 NI Act as amended provides that if such condition is imposed, it shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation - The word 'may' in Section 148 does not make the direction mandatory, but once the court decides to impose a condition, the minimum amount is prescribed - Held that the appellate court must exercise discretion judicially (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which empowers the appellate court to direct deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation, applies to appeals arising from complaints filed before the amendment came into force.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the High Court confirming the direction to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspension of sentence under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act No. 20 of 2018.
Law Points
- Procedural law applies retrospectively
- Amendment Act No. 20/2018 to Section 148 NI Act is procedural
- Appellate court discretion to impose condition of deposit
- Minimum deposit of 20% of fine or compensation
- No vested right in appeal procedure
Case Details
Criminal Appeal Nos. 917-944 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 4948-4975/2019)
Vijay Hansaria (Senior Advocate) for appellants, Alok Sangwan for respondent
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenging the direction to deposit 25% of compensation as a condition for suspension of sentence.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought quashing of the order directing deposit of 25% of compensation and setting aside the condition imposed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine; they appealed and sought suspension of sentence, but the appellate court directed deposit of 25% of compensation under amended Section 148.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants on 30.10.2018; first appellate court suspended sentence but directed deposit of 25% compensation; High Court dismissed revision and confirmed the order.
Issues
Whether the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to appeals arising from complaints filed before the amendment came into force.
Whether the direction to deposit 25% of compensation is mandatory or discretionary under Section 148.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the amendment is substantive and cannot apply retrospectively to complaints filed before its enforcement; relied on Garikapatti Veeraya and Videocon International.
Appellants argued that the appellate court treated 'may' as 'shall' and did not exercise discretion; relied on M/s Ginni Garments and Ajay Vinodchandra Shah.
Appellants argued that under Section 357(2) CrPC, fine is not payable until appeal decision; relied on Dilip S. Dhanukar.
Respondent argued that the amendment is procedural and applies to all appeals pending after enforcement; no vested right is affected; the direction is in consonance with the object of the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment to Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is procedural in nature and applies to all appeals pending on or after the date of enforcement, irrespective of when the complaint was filed. The appellate court has discretion under Section 389 CrPC to impose conditions for suspension of sentence, and Section 148 NI Act only prescribes a minimum deposit of 20% of the fine or compensation if such condition is imposed. The direction to deposit 25% was within the court's discretion and not excessive.
Judgment Excerpts
The amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act is procedural in nature and therefore there is no question of applying the same retrospectively.
The appellate court has discretion to impose conditions for suspension of sentence, and Section 148 NI Act provides that if such condition is imposed, it shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation.
Procedural History
Criminal complaints filed before 2.8.2018 under Section 138 NI Act. Trial court convicted appellants on 30.10.2018. Appellants appealed to first appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula) and applied for suspension of sentence. First appellate court suspended sentence but directed deposit of 25% of compensation under amended Section 148. Appellants filed revision before Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the revision and confirmed the order. Appellants then appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 148
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 389, 357(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 20(1)
