Landmark judgement for 138 NI act.

Appellate court cannot insist on deposit of 20% as pre-condition for suspending sentence under section 148 of NI Act: Supreme Court.

S(caps)ection 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) is not mandatory. The appellate court can decide whether to apply it or not, especially if doing so would be unjust.

Highlights :

Landmark judgement:

JAMBOO BHANDARI V/S MP SIDC LTD (2023) SC

1. Section 148 of NI Act is not mandatory if the Appellate Court thinks that its application is unjust.
2. Section 148 says that when a drawer of a cheque is convicted and prefers an appeal, the Appellate Court may suspend his sentence under Section 389 of CrPC on deposit of 20% of the compensation by him. This Section was added by the 2018 Amendment.

What is section 148 of NI Act?

It was introduced by the 2018 amendment.

It states that when someone is convicted of a cheque bouncing and files an appeal, the appellate court can suspend their sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

1. This suspension can happen only when the convicted person deposits 20% of the compensation amount.
2. In short, the Jambu Bhandari judgment gives greater discretion to the appellate courts in deciding whether or not to apply Section 148.

This is important because it prevents situations where a harsh application of the law can lead to unfair results.

If you want you can tell me any other legal term or matter, and I will try to explain it in simple terms.

Certainly, here are some additional details about the Supreme Court decision in Jambu Bhandari vs MP SIDC Ltd (2023).

Also read: Salman Khan's Legal Troubles: Inside the 1998 Blackbuck and Chinkara Poaching Cases.

Background:

The case pertained to an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonour of cheque.

Supreme Court's ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the word "may" in Section 148 should be interpreted as discretionary and not mandator

This means that appellate courts are not bound to insist on deposit of 20% as a pre-condition for suspending the sentence.

The Court emphasised that the primary purpose of Section 148 is to ensure payment to the complainant and not to impose a compulsory deposit.

Key Points:

Discretion for appellate courts: The decision gives appellate courts greater flexibility in deciding whether to require a 20% deposit.

Focus on justice: The Court emphasised that the application of Section 148 must be just and equitable in each case.

Consideration of factors: Appellate courts are now expected to consider a variety of factors before deciding on the need for depositions, such as the merits of the appeal, the legality of the case, and the nature of the appeal,Financial condition of the accused and possibility of the accused absconding.

Also read: Top Famous Crime Cases in India: Unsolved Mysteries & High-Profile Trials.

Implications:

• The judgment is expected to bring more fairness and flexibility to the application of Section 148 of the NI Act.
• It will likely lead to a more nuanced approach in cases involving cheque dishonor, where the focus will be on achieving a just outcome for both the complainant and the accused.

Please note: This is a general overview of the judgment. For a complete and accurate understanding, it is always advisable to consult the full text of the judgment and seek legal advice from a qualified professional.

I hope this provides more context and clarity!

Conclusion:

This article is based on the judgment given by the Supreme Court. If you have any doubts, download a copy of this order from the Supreme Court website.