Keywords -Supreme Court, Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Deposit requirement, Suspension of sentence, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Compensation amount
New Delhi, September 15, 2023: The Supreme Court of India has provided significant clarity on the matter of depositing a minimum of 20% of the amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for suspending a sentence. The Court emphasized that this requirement is not an absolute rule and may be relaxed in exceptional cases.
In a recent judgment, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal underscored that when an appellate court examines a plea under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by an accused who has been convicted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, it has the authority to assess whether it qualifies as an exceptional case warranting the suspension of the sentence without imposing the 20% deposit condition.
The case in question involved individuals who had been convicted under the NI Act. Upon appeal, the Sessions Court granted relief under the CrPC but imposed the condition that the appellants must deposit 20% of the compensation amount.
This order was subsequently upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which stated that the suspension of sentence under the CrPC could only be granted by instructing the accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation amount.
The Supreme Court referred to its observations in the 2019 case of Surinder Singh Deswal, also known as Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi (2019) 11 SCC 341, highlighting the need for a purposive interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act. According to the Court, while the appellate court typically justifies imposing the deposit condition as stipulated in Section 148, it may deviate from this norm if it deems the 20% deposit requirement unjust or if it infringes upon the appellant’s right to appeal. Such exceptions should be documented explicitly.
The bench pointed out that neither the appellants nor their legal representatives had pleaded for an exception to be made or for the waiver of the 20% deposit requirement before either the Sessions Court or the High Court.
In light of this, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the case with a fresh perspective. The bench emphasized that when an accused applies under the CrPC for the relief of suspending a sentence, they typically seek it without any conditions. Consequently, the Court must evaluate whether the case falls under an exceptional category. It noted that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had erroneously assumed that a minimum deposit of 20% was an absolute rule, without considering potential exceptions.
This judgment from the Supreme Court not only provides crucial guidance on the interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act but also ensures that the imposition of the 20% deposit condition is approached with greater flexibility in exceptional circumstances.
Written by- Shuniti Sinha, College name – Brainware University , Semester- 7th, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
