The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 595 of 2023 Ashok Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. S.J.Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.02.2023 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. 3. The matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 29th November, 2022 and 26th December, 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, whereby, the order to deposit 20% compensation amount was revoked and also an application for such a deposit beyond the time limit of 90 days was rejected in view of such revocation order dated 29th November, 2022. 4. Annexure-1 is a copy of the judgment in I.C.C. Case No. 456 of 2018 by the learned CJM, Jagatsinghpur. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below committed an error in not accepting the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount merely for the reason that the time Page 1 of 4 limit for such deposit had expired and also the order to deposit was revoked. It is further submitted that the learned court below could have accepted the deposit and suspended the sentence directed in I.C.C. Case No. 456 of 2018 and since because the deposit was not accepted despite the petitioner was ready and willing to, in the meantime, the learned CJM, Jagatsinghpur has proceeded with and issued NBWA against him by order dated 4th January, 2023. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be allowed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the court of learned CJM, Jagatsinghpur despite the fact that the time limit for 90 days expired or by the date the impugned order under Annexure-3 was passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an element of discretion involved with the learned court below conferred under Section 148 of the N.I. Act which in the present case has not been exercised in a judicious manner in spite of the fact that the petitioner was prepared to deposit 20% of the compensation amount notwithstanding the fact that such a request on an application so moved by him was beyond 90 days as stipulated in sub-section 2 of Section 148 of the N.I.Act. 6. As per Section 148(1) of the N.I.Act, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138 thereof, the Appellate court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% to the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court which shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid under Section 143-A. According to sub section (2) of Section 148 of the N.I.Act, the amount which is referred to in sub section (1) shall be deposited within 60 days from the date of order or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. Considering the aforesaid provision, the Court finds that an Appellate court may direct deposit of such sum which shall be minimum of 20% fine or Page 2 of 4 compensation amount and the deposit to be made within 60 days from the date of order or within such further period not exceeding 30 days. In the present case, 90 days has expired, consequent upon which, the learned court below revoked the order on 29th November, 2022 and thereafter, proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner on 26th December, 2022. 7. Such a situation beyond 90 days is not covered by Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Admittedly, the order of conviction is under challenge before the learned court below. The petitioner was allowed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 90 days which expired and as a result impugned order dated 29th November, 2022 was passed. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved the application to deposit the amount but the same was refused since the time limit had expired. 8. It is pleaded in para-5 of the petition that the grandmother of the petitioner expired in the month of October, 2022 and therefore, he was in difficulty and hence could not deposit 20% of the compensation amount within the stipulated period. There is no denial to the fact that delay has happened and default to deposit 20% of the amount so directed by the learned court below. It is also not in dispute that the application was moved beyond 90 days after expiry of the time stipulated as per sub-section 2 Rule 148 of the N.I.Act. The question is, whether, under such circumstances, any such application to deposit the amount so directed by the learned court below could have been allowed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court, a direction may be issued for the learned court below to accept the 20% deposit of the compensation amount as such a situation is not covered by Section 148 of the N.I. Act. The Court is in agreement and is also of the view that when the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, it should be allowed. Page 3 of 4 In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that though there is no such provision to bar to accept 20% deposit as directed by the Appellate court under Section 148 of the N.I.Act, it should be allowed since such a situation is not envisaged and furthermore when the grandmother of the petitioner expired in the month of October, 2022 and he was in some difficulty to deposit the amount. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, since the petitioner is ready to deposit the compensation amount of 20%, the Court is of the view that it should be allowed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the CRLMC stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order under Annexure-3 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to allow the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two weeks hence as he is prepared to do so and thereafter to proceed and ensure early disposal of the appeal. 11. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Page 4 of 4