MAHENDRA RAJORIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order impugned dtd. 21/6/2023, passed by the learned Court below, whereby a condition of deposition of 20% of the amount of conviction was imposed upon the petitioner, pending appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant- respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque of Rs.25,00,000.00. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, having taken cognizance of the matter and hearing both the sides/scanning the record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years simple imprisonment along with compensation to the tune of Rs.50.00 lakhs. It is further submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which vide order impugned dtd. 21/6/2023, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of the conviction order within a period of 60 days, pending appeal against the conviction. In this background, being aggrieved of the order impugned mandating the deposition of 20% of the conviction amount, learned Counsel has filed the instant petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing and setting aside of order impugned dtd. 21/6/2023.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the condition of pre-deposit of 20% amount shall tantamount to deprivation of the petitioner's right of statutory appeal. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1463/2021 titled as Asim Narang Vs. M/s Ginni International Ltd. and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023. To further elucidate upon his claim, learned Counsel averred that no debt liability arises upon the petitioner as the petitioner had taken debt of only 4 lakhs rupees, against which the petitioner had furnished over 10 cheques as security, but the respondent-complainant reflected/filled up an exaggerated amount, exceeding the admitted debt of 4 lakhs rupees, out of which 3 lakhs rupees have already been returned. Lastly, whilst praying for the quashing of the condition of deposit of 20% conviction amount, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Sec. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the said condition of pre-deposit is not mandatory in nature and the same can be exempted in extra-ordinary circumstances, including financial hardship.