Orders Passed U/S 148 NI Act Are Interlocutory In Nature, Not Revisable: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act, suspended the order of imprisonment (till the disposal of appeal) for cheque dishonour, subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount. The court observed as under:

Therefore, applying any of the tests advocated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, still the order, which is passed in exercise of power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is neither a final order nor an intermediate order so as to hold that the revision as against the same is maintainable.

The petitioner (complainant), represented by Mr. Bijesh Thomas contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal and Ors. v. Virender Gandhi and Anr would make it clear that the order of deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was mandatory and that the deposit is with respect to 20% of the compensation/fine amount and not the cheque amount.

The respondents, represented through Mr. GR Hari, on the other hand, contended that the order was interlocutory and therefore the revision itself was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Samuel George, Maliyekkal Bunglow v. State of Kerala and Anr wherein it was held that the order under Section 148 is interlocutory and a revision was not maintainable. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Udaiyar @ Sattaiudaiyar and Anr. v. State wherein the courts have held that the order of dismissal of application for suspension of sentence and bail is not a final order and is only an interlocutory order and therefore, revision is not maintainable.

The respondents also submitted that the deposit of 20% was not a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal and the same was not a condition for grant of suspension of sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The main issue to be considered by the court was whether the order in question was an interlocutory one and whether a revision would be maintainable. The court observed that the embargo under Section 397(2) CrPC was introduced to put fetters on unmindful and repeated approach to the High Court.

The court also looked into the intent behind introducing Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In L.G.R. Enterprises and Ors. vs. P. Anbazhagan, the Madras High Court had observed as under:

Having observed and found that because of the delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings, the object and purpose of the enactment of Section 138 of the N.I. Act was being frustrated, the Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the N.I. Act, by which the first appellate Court, in an appeal challenging the order of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is conferred with the power to direct the convicted accused - appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.

The court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. It was only a direction to deposit subject to the final outcome of the appeal and as such was only a matter of procedure. The court highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. It was also observed that non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings.

Thus, the court held that the order of deposit passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was only interlocutory. Even in the present case where such order of deposit was coupled as a condition for grant of suspension of sentence, the precedents of the court have made it clear that order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail are all interlocutory orders and are not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

At the same time, the court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the court in exercise of inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the CrPC.