Skip to main content

Section 138 N.I. Act - Revision against Conviction - Expeditious Disposal - Senior Citizen - Condition of Deposit of 1/4th of Cheque Amount is Vacated [SC JUDGMENT]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.138 - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S.401 - High Court' s Powers of revisions - Revision against Conviction - Condition of deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount - Senior Citizen - High Court to dispose of the Revision Petition expeditiously preferably within six months - the interim direction issued by the High Court for deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount is vacated.


2018 (3) RCR (Criminal) 293 : 2018 (8) Scale 629 : (2018) 8 SCC 118
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[KURIAN JOSEPH ] AND [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] JJ.
May 15, 2018.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 747 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1628 OF 2017]
M V AMREETH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K VENKATA KRISHNA & ANR. Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) Mr. G. V. R. Choudary, Adv. Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri, AOR Mr. A. Chandra Sekhar, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Goel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved since the High Court, while admitting the revision against the conviction in respect of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed a condition of deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount. This was in addition to the fine which the appellant had already remitted.
3. When the matter came up before this Court, on 02.03.2017, the following order was passed :-
“It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have verified too that the sentence of fine was only Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) by the learned Magistrate, which was affirmed in the appeal and that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) has already been remitted.No doubt, the Revisional Court has jurisdiction to impose appropriate conditions while suspending the sentence. However, having regard to the fact that the learned Magistrate while ordering the sentence has limited the fine to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), which has been paid also, we are of the view that the condition imposed by the High Court, at this stage, for suspension of sentence is not warranted, in the peculiar facts of this case.
Issue notice.
There will be stay of that part of the direction in the impugned order for deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount and subject to other conditions in the order, the protection granted by the High Court will continue to operate until further orders.”
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that he has no objection in allowing the appeal in case the Court could direct the High Court to dispose of the Revision Petition expeditiously. Accordingly, the interim direction issued by the High Court for deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount is vacated. We request the High Court to dispose of Criminal Revision Case No. 89 of 2017 expeditiously and preferably within six months from today, in view of the fact that the first respondent is a senior citizen.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...