AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr S.K. Panigrahi, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
This matter was not in today’s list. On being mentioned in the first hour, this matter is taken up through Special Notice.
In filing this Criminal Revision the Revisionist/Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.02/2024.
Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that since all the bank account of the Revisionist/Petitioner has been frozen by the Investigating Agency, nothing is left with the Revisionist/Petitioner for discharging any kind of obligations unless the said accounts are defreezed.
He further submits that though the Revisionist/Petitioner has one hundred eighty-eight crores of rupees in his Bank account, he is unable to utilize a penny from the said account.
Learned counsel for the Revisionist/Petitioner further contends that if there is any obligation or contractual obligation, the Opposite Party should approach the OPID Court to get the amount, which is in question.
To support his stand in challenging the above noted impugned order, learned counsel for the Revisionist relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jambod Bhandari Vrs. The M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Criminal Appeal No(s).2741 of 2023 (SLP(Crl.)No.(s).4927 of 2023.
The relevant portion of the judgment cited supra is extracted herein below:-
“6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
Therefore, when Appellate court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.”
In such view of the matter, let notice be issued to the Opposite Party.
Issue notice to the Opposite Party by Registered Post with A.D./Speed Post making it returnable by 9th April, 2024. Requisites shall be filed within a period of five working days hence.
List this matter along with its other connected case on 10th April, 2024.
I.A. NO.197 OF 2024
Heard.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist/Petitioner and looking to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) this Court directs that operation of the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Crl. Appeal No.02/2024/Annexure-1 only to the extent of direction for depositing 20% of the statutory amount shall remain stayed till conclusion of the Criminal Revision.
This I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.
.……………………………….