DEVENDER SINGH Vs. GURUKUL INDERPRASTH MANAGING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Gurukul Inderprasth Managing Committee having its office Gurukul Inderprasth, Arya Nagar, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Devender Singh. Vide judgment dated 10.4.2018, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs i.e. 1.5 times of the cheque amount to the complainant under Section 143(1) (proviso) of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 357(1)(3) Cr.P.C. within a period of one month from passing of the judgment observing that compensation amount if not paid in time shall be recoverable under Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the accused had preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions. The appeal came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 1.5.2018. An application for suspending the sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant-accused was moved. Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad was of the view that before giving benefit of Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. and releasing the appellant-accused on bail, reasonable conditions should be imposed upon him. At that time learned counsel for the appellant-accused had submitted that it was a legal and constitution right of the accused to get bail and no condition could be imposed. In support of his contention, he had referred to authorities Kedar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, 2006 4 RCR(Cri) 582 (P&H); and Dalip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., 2007 2 RCR(Cri) 636.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad considered such contentions put forward by learned counsel for the appellant-accused and observed that in authority Dalip S. Dahanukar's referred to by learned counsel for the appellant-accused, the Apex Court had observed that the appellate Court can suspend the sentence and can put the appellant on terms. He has also considered the law laid down in authority Rajnikant Nathalal Maniar Vs. Jagdish Jasvantlal Patwa & others, 2017 2 RCR(Cri) 180 (Gujarat) to the effect that as observed by the Apex Court in Dalip Dahanukar's case, at the most Court has to see that such condition should not be harsh to the extent that the petitioner may not be released on bail at all for non-compliance of such condition and thereafter the Gujarat High Court went held that except that it cannot be said that no condition whatsoever could be imposed or imposition of the condition is illegal. Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad while entertaining the appeal and suspending the sentence of appellant/accused has observed as under: