contact@narulaandnarula.com
+91-82848-00039

Exceptional Circumstances v/s Pre-Deposit: A Tale of Legal Dexterity.

Author

Date

Share Now

Exceptional Circumstances v/s Pre-Deposit: A Tale of Legal Dexterity.

In the realm of legal proceedings, few matters evoke as much debate and scrutiny as the issue of pre-deposit requirements. One such instance arises under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where pre-deposit is mandated as a prerequisite for filing an appeal against a decree passed in proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, amidst the rigidity of this statutory provision, there exists a glimmer of hope for those facing exceptional circumstances. Let us embark on a journey through the intricacies of this legal quagmire, illuminated by the landmark judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v/s M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction. 

[148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent. of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:

Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.

 

(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.

(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:

Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.]

At the heart of this narrative lies the dichotomy between statutory mandate and judicial discretion. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unequivocally stipulates the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit as a condition precedent to the admission of an appeal. This provision, intended to deter frivolous litigation and ensure the expeditious disposal of cases, stands as a formidable barrier for appellants seeking recourse against adverse decrees.

In a recent legal skirmish, our client found themselves pitted against their opponent clamoring for the quashing of an order imposing a pre-deposit obligation. The petitioner, citing exceptional circumstances, sought refuge in judicial leniency, invoking the precedent established in Jamboo Bhandari (Supra).

 

In a twist of fate, the petitioner’s case crumbled under the weight of procedural oversight. Their failure to first approach the appellate court prior to seeking relief before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, proved to be a fatal misstep. The court, recognizing the importance of procedural regularity and adherence to due process, ruled in favor of our client, reinforcing the principle that legal recourse must be pursued diligently and in accordance with established protocols.

But what of the petitioner’s plea for leniency in light of exceptional circumstances? Herein lies the crux of our tale. While the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 148 may seem unyielding, the judiciary has, on occasion, demonstrated a willingness to exercise discretion in the face of compelling circumstances. The case of Jamboo Bhandari (Supra) serves as a poignant reminder of the judiciary’s inherent role as the guardian of justice, empowered to discern between the letter of the law and the spirit of equitable relief.

In conclusion, the saga of pre-deposit requirements under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act epitomizes the delicate balance between statutory mandate and judicial discretion. While the law may appear rigid in its application, the judiciary remains vested with the authority to temper justice with mercy, particularly in cases where the party succeeds to portray that they fall under the “exceptional category” as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 

Tags :

Alankar Narula,Jamboo Bhandari v/s M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.,Negotiable Instruments Act,pre deposit not mandatory under section 138,Punjab and Haryana High Court

Leave a Reply

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