Facts
The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court’s order directing them to deposit 10% of the amount awarded by the Trial Court as a condition for suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Source reference: p.3The petitioners argued that the Trial Court’s award of Rs.90,10,000 included amounts beyond the Rs.60,00,000 total cheque amount, and that they had already paid Rs.80,00,000 toward the underlying debt.
Source reference: pp.3–4The respondent disputed that the payment related to the transactions covered by the cheques and submitted that the Trial Court had awarded additional fine, while also contending that a statutory minimum deposit of 20% applied.
Source reference: p.5The High Court considered whether to interfere with the deposit condition imposed in the pending appeal.
Source reference: pp.5–6Issues
1. Whether the direction to deposit 10% of the Trial Court’s total award, including fine, should be modified where the two cheques totalled Rs.60,00,000.
Source reference: pp.3–4, 62. Whether the petitioners’ asserted payment of Rs.80,00,000 should affect the deposit condition at this stage, given the dispute over which transactions that payment concerned.
Source reference: p.6Law Applied
The Court considered the suspension-of-sentence provisions identified in the judgment as Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Source reference: p.3It also recorded the respondent’s submission that the law mandated a minimum deposit of 20%, but did not determine that submission as a separate issue.
Source reference: p.5The Court applied its discretion to modify the deposit condition by reference to the cheque amount, rather than the larger total award.
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Court left unresolved whether the petitioners’ Rs.80,00,000 payment related to the debt underlying the two cheques, holding that this question should be considered at the appeal’s final hearing.
Source reference: p.6It nevertheless noted that the Sessions Court’s 10% condition had been calculated on Rs.90,10,000, although the aggregate cheque amount was Rs.60,00,000.
Source reference: p.6To meet the interests of justice, it substituted a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount in both cases.
Source reference: p.6Holding
The Court modified the impugned order and directed the petitioners to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in both cases within four weeks.
The amount is to be kept in a nationalised bank in a fixed deposit for one year, with auto-renewal.
Source reference: p.6The criminal petition was disposed of.
Source reference: p.7Acts & Sections Cited
5 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231
Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811
Original Court PDF
M/S SLV CONCRETESvsSMT. K. MAMATHA SRINIVAS,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
