LexBIJAY AGARWAL versus M/S MEDILINES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890 : 2024 INSC 918 Bijay Agarwal v. M/s Medilines (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4301 of 2024) 21 October 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for suspending the sentence in an appeal filed against his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer” – Trial Court found appellant guilty and accordingly was convicted and sentenced – Appellant filed criminal appeals before the Principal City Civil and Session Judge – The sentence was suspended with condition to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation – It is against the said direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount that the appellant approached the High Court, which culminated in the impugned common order dated 09.01.2024: Held: In the case of the position qua Section 143A, NI Act, merely because an officer of a company concerned is the authorised signatory of the cheque concerned by itself will not make such an officer ‘drawer of the cheque’ under Section 148, NI Act, so as to empower the Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 138, NI Act, to direct to deposit compensation of any sum under Section 148(1), of the NI Act – It is settled that an Appellate Court in an appeal against conviction under Section 138, NI Act, could not place a condition to deposit * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1891 Bijay Agarwal v. M/s Medilines an amount invoking the power under Section 148(1), NI Act, mechanically without considering whether the case falls within exceptional circumstances – In view of the said exposition of law, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the aforesaid aspects as it would certainly be an exceptional circumstance to exempt the appellant who is not the ‘drawer’ of the cheque concerned to deposit the amount payable under Section 148(1) by an appellant who is the ‘drawer’ of the cheque – In the instant case, the High Court has failed to consider these crucial aspects in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in its various decisions while considering the application for suspension of sentence for the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act in the pending appeal – In view of the discussion, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the orders passed by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge stands quashed and set aside to the extent it put the condition to deposit of 20% of the fine amount payable. [Paras 16, 17, 18] Case Law Cited Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors. [2024] 7 SCR 1211 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1800; K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vohra and Another [2009] 9 SCR 1144 : (2009) 10 SCC 48; N. Harihara Krishnan v. Godfather Travels and Tours P. Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 663; Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 446 – referred to. List of Acts Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. List of Keywords Signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company; Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Suspension of sentence; Condition to deposit an amount out of fine or compensation; Ex- ceptional circumstances. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 4301 of 2024 1892 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 13095 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 4302 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Anjan Datta, Sumon Pathak, Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Ashish Raghvuvanshi, Vishal Arun Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant. Gautam S. Bharadwaj, Ashwin Kumar D.S., Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment C.T. Ravikumar, J. Leave granted. On the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. 1. The captioned appeals by a special leave are directed against the i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.