Sharad Kishanchand Bihani Vs Harishbhai Ramkishan Narang (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court considered multiple matters arising from a common grievance regarding conditions imposed by the Appellate Court while suspending sentences in cheque dishonour cases. The Appellate Court had granted bail to the accused subject to stringent conditions, including payment of 80% of the compensation to the complainant and 20% to the Government in some cases, and full compensation in others, within a specified time. Default in compliance would result in additional imprisonment.
The applicant challenged these conditions, contending that the Appellate Court failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was argued that the provision uses the term “may,” indicating discretion, and that imposing such onerous conditions without assessing the facts and financial capacity of the accused could effectively deprive the accused of the right to appeal. The applicant relied on judicial precedents interpreting Section 148, particularly emphasizing that the appellate court must consider whether the case warrants exemption from deposit requirements.
The High Court examined the legal position by referring to decisions of the Supreme Court. In Surinder Singh Deswal, it was held that although the word “may” is used in Section 148, it should generally be interpreted as a rule requiring deposit of at least 20% of the compensation or fine. However, exceptions can be made for special reasons. The provision was introduced to ensure speedy resolution of cheque dishonour cases and to prevent misuse of appellate procedures to delay payment.
