Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bapuji Murugesan Vs Mythili Rajagopalan  (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : Crl.R.C.No. 766 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bapuji Murugesan Vs Mythili Rajagopalan  (Madras High Court)

Conclusion: Order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail were all interlocutory orders and were not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held: In the instant case, assessee contended that order of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was mandatory and that the deposit was with respect to 20% of the compensation/fine amount and not the cheque amount. contended that the order was interlocutory and therefore the revision itself was not maintainable. It was held that the court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. Non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings. Thus, the court held that the order of deposit passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was only interlocutory. Even in the present case where such order of deposit was coupled as a condition for grant of suspension of sentence, the precedents of the court have made it clear that order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail were all interlocutory orders and were not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court gave liberty to assessee to approach the court in exercise of inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

By a judgment dated 08.01.2019 in C.C.No.1046 of 2005, the respondent was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and was directed to pay double the amount of cheque under Exs.P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031