Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sumeet Gupta, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He filed Criminal Appeal No.757 of 2015 before the Sessions Court and also preferred Misc. Application No.2333 of 2015 for suspension of the sentence. The Sessions Court allowed the application but directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10 lacs before the trial court within six weeks as a condition for suspension. The total compensation amount awarded by the trial court was Rs.16,07,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. The petitioner challenged this condition before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the deposit of Rs.10 lacs was exorbitant and effectively deprived him of his right to appeal. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Krishshankat Laddha v. Ghanashyam Khobrekar (Writ Petition No.36 of 2007), held that the condition to deposit 50% of the compensation amount was held to be excessive and that a condition of 20% would be reasonable. Accordingly, the High Court reduced the deposit amount to 20% of Rs.16,07,000/-, i.e., Rs.3,21,400/-, to be deposited within four weeks. The petition was disposed of with this modification.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Condition of Deposit - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - The Sessions Court while suspending sentence of imprisonment directed deposit of Rs.10 lacs out of total compensation of Rs.16,07,000/-. Held that such condition is exorbitant and virtually defeats the statutory right of appeal. The court reduced the deposit to 20% of the compensation amount, i.e., Rs.3,21,400/-, following the principle that the condition should not be oppressive. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Sessions Court to deposit Rs.10 lacs (approximately 62% of the compensation amount) for suspension of sentence is exorbitant and amounts to depriving the appellant of his right of appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and modified the condition, reducing the deposit amount to 20% of the compensation amount, i.e., Rs.3,21,400/-, to be deposited within four weeks. The suspension of sentence was maintained subject to this condition.
Law Points
- Suspension of sentence under Section 138 NI Act
- condition of deposit should not be exorbitant so as to defeat right of appeal
- 20% of compensation amount is reasonable
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 83
Criminal Writ Petition No.561 of 2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr. Q. M. Ashfaq with Mr. Arvind Taral (for petitioner), Mr. Abbas Kazmi (for respondent No.2), Mr. A.S. Shitole (APP for State)
The State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nariman
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the condition imposed by Sessions Court for suspension of sentence in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reduction of the deposit amount of Rs.10 lacs imposed as condition for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment.
Filing Reason
The Sessions Court directed deposit of Rs.10 lacs which the petitioner claimed was exorbitant and deprived him of his right of appeal.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment and awarded compensation of Rs.16,07,000/- with interest. The Sessions Court suspended the sentence subject to deposit of Rs.10 lacs.
Issues
Whether the condition to deposit Rs.10 lacs for suspension of sentence is exorbitant and violates the right of appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the deposit of Rs.10 lacs is exorbitant and amounts to depriving him of his right of appeal, relying on Krishshankat Laddha case where 50% deposit was held excessive.
Respondent opposed the reduction.
Ratio Decidendi
The condition for suspension of sentence under Section 138 NI Act should not be so exorbitant as to defeat the statutory right of appeal. A deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is reasonable and not oppressive.
Judgment Excerpts
amount which Sessions Court has directed the petitioner to deposit that of Rs.10 lacs is quite exorbitant. It is as good as depriving the petitioner from his right of appeal.
direction to deposit 50% of the compensation amount virtually defeats the statutory right of appeal
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He filed Criminal Appeal No.757 of 2015 before the Sessions Court and Misc. Application No.2333 of 2015 for suspension of sentence. The Sessions Court allowed suspension subject to deposit of Rs.10 lacs. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging that condition.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
