Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 125624 (ALL)

DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT., GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER

A482/1799/2025 · 2025-02-28

Karunesh Singh Pawar

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12410 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1799 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.N. Shukla,Kuldeep Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. Through this petition, the petitioners seek following relief:- "WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the portion of the order dated 23.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2024 Deepak Srivastava and another versus State of U.P. and another in respect to the condition imposed by the learned Session Judge for deposit of 20% of compensation awarded by the learned trial court in complaint case no. 1928 of 2021 Shewta Singh Versus M/S Maa chandrika enterprises and others, under section 138 N.1. Act, P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow. It is further prayed that during pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court, the implementation of the order dated 23.12.2024 In respect to the deposit of 20% compensation may kindly be stayed." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2024, passed in Complaint Case No. 1928/2021, Shweta Singh vs. M/s Maa Chandrika Enterprises and others, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal. The appeal was heard and admitted; however, the learned Appellate Court, without considering the petitioners' application seeking relaxation of the condition to deposit 20% of the fine imposed by the trial court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, passed the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 without application of mind. It has been further submitted that the application for relaxation of fine was filed on the same day along with the appeal. He has drawn attention of the Court towards the order dated 31.01.2025 in which it is mentioned that the application has been decided impliedly. It has been further submitted that in case the Court was refusing to accept the prayer of the petitioners for relaxation of 20% of the statutory amount of fine imposed by the trial court, at least the reason ought to have been given in the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 as well as in the order dated 31.01.2025. It has been further submitted that a perusal of the orders dated 23.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 shows that the application filed for relaxation of the fine has not been considered at all by the learned Appellate Court. Perused the record. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that learned Appellate Court has not considered the application for relaxation of fine filed by the petitioners and no reason at all has been given for not considering the prayer for relaxation of fine. Although the Appellate Court has authority to direct the accused to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation under Section 148 of the N.I. Act, however, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition to deposit 20% of the fine will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. Likewise, in case, the Appellate Court determines that the grounds presented by the accused for relaxation of the fine do not warrant an exception, it must explicitly state the reasons for this conclusion. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776", the application is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 is set aside to the extent of depositing 20% of the amount of fine as per the judgment of the trial court. The Appellate Court is directed to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), while considering the petitioners' application for relaxation of the 20% fine imposed by the trial court in its order dated 27.11.2024. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench