NI Act | Order For Releasing Interim Compensation Is Interlocutory, Not Intermediate; Revision Petition Not Maintainable Before HC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition against an order passed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the release of interim compensation, is not maintainable before the High Court.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held “Here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”

The petitioner G Hemanth Chandra had approached the court to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 08.02.2024 allowing the application filed under Section 148 (3) of the Act by the respondent to release a sum of Rs.62,00,000 (20% of the fine amount) deposited with the Court in furtherance to order to admit the appeal against the order of conviction.

The Registry objected to the maintainability of the revision petition contending that the order prayed for the release of the amount (by the trial court) and the same cannot be entertained as there is a bar under Section 397(2) CrPC and the same is not maintainable with the appeal against order of conviction still pending before the Sessions Court.

The petitioner argued that a revision petition is maintainable as it is an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order and contended that the revision petition is maintainable since the order was passed under Section 148(3) of the Act.

The bench noted that the impugned order was for the release of the amount, which was deposited before the Trial Court for entertaining the application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C and the sentence is suspended subject to payment of 20% of the amount.

It said that under Section 148, a proviso is made to release the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time, during the pendency of the appeal and further the proviso was also very clear with a condition to repay the amount.

When such being the case, the same cannot be termed as intermediate order as observed by the coordinate bench and it is only an interlocutory order passed on the application filed by the respondent invoking the proviso to Section 148(3) of the Act and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it amounts to interlocutory order, the Court held.

It added that a direction was given to release the amount subject to further proviso as mentioned in Section 148(3) of the Act and the same did not determine the closure of the case but only that the amount in deposit has to be released subject to the further proviso to Section 148(3) of the Act.

Accordingly, it found the revision petition not maintainable as it did not amount to an intermediate order.

Read Also | S.397 CrPC | Revision Petition Before Sessions Court Against Order Passed By Magistrate U/S 143A NI Act Maintainable: Karnataka High Court (livelaw.in)

Appearance: Advocate Bharath Kumar V for Petitioner.

Advocate Mahadev R.K for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123

Case Title: G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order