SREENIVASAN Vs. BABU RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above cases have been placed before us by an order of the Chief Justice pursuant to a reference order dtd. 20/2/2014 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The issue referred to us concerns the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as the "N.I. Act"] that deals with the power of an Appellate Court to order payment pending an appeal against conviction. In particular, we are called upon to clarify the nature and extent of the statutory discretion conferred on the Appellate Court, in the matter of ordering payments pending appeal against conviction under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. as also on the requirement of furnishing reasons in support of the order passed by the Appellate Court in exercise of that discretion.

(2.) In both the cases before us, orders passed by the Sessions Court [Appellate Court] directing deposit of a percentage of the compensation amount ordered by the trial court under Sec. 148 of the N.I. Act are impugned inter alia on the ground that the orders passed by the Appellate Court were not supported by any reasons. The referring Judge noticed that different perspectives had been embraced by Single Judges of this Court while comprehending the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi - [(2019) 11 SCC 341] and Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. - [(2023) 10 SCC 446]. The different perspectives of the Single Judges of this Court are found in Ambili R. v. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. and Another - [2020 (1) KHC 476] and Baiju v. State of Kerala - [2023 (7) KHC 669], and the referring Judge, while favouring the view taken in Ambili R. (supra), believed that a conflicting view had been taken in Baiju (supra) and referred the issues to be considered by this Division Bench.

(3.) We have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri.Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.