Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.3662/2019 and Crl.M.A.32230/2019
M/S SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.& ANR Petitioners \^\ Through: Mr.MohitMathur,Senior Advocate with
Mr.Jitender Kumar Jha,Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,Mr.Sarsij N.& Mr.Rajeev, Advocates
Through:
29.07.2019 Crl. M.A.32231-32232/2019(exemption)in CRL.M.C.3662/2019
Crl. M.A.32234-32235/2019 Cexemption)in CRL.M.C.3663/2019
Crl. M.A.32237-32238/2019fexemntionl in CRL.M.C.3664/2019
Crl. M.A.32240-32241/2019(exemption)in CRL.M.C.3665/2019
Crl. M.A.32243-32244/2019lexemptionl in CRL.M.C.3666/2019
Exemption allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C.3662/2019etc. Page 1 of3 2019:DHC:7475
6)
On the complaints (CC Nos.611545/2016, 612210/2016, 612196/2016,612180/2016 and 612209/2016), ofthe respondent after trial, the petitioners herein were held guilty and convicted for offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 respecting, in all, twelve cheques. By similar orders passed on 03.05.2019, the trial court awarded substantive sentences ofimprisonmentfor terms specified and also directed fine to be paid,the substantive part of which is intended to go as compensation to the complainant,the amount in all five cases calculated to be in the sum ofRs.47 crores.
The judgments of conviction and orders on sentence in the said five cases are presently subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeals
(Nos.308/2019, 309/2019, 310/2019, 314/2019 and 316/2019) pending in the court of additional sessions Judge, South-East District. The petitioners had moved the said appellate court for suspension ofsentence under section
ORDER
389 Cr.P.C.By order dated 31.05.2019,which is common to all the said five cases,the first appellate court has directed/ under Sh. Sudhir Makkad, Ld. Senior Advocate for appellant further presses his application u/s. 389 CrPCfor suspension of sentence andfor bail during the pending ofappeal. The disposal ofappeal willtake time. Accordingly, thesentencepassed against the appellants is suspended and appellantNo.2 is admitted to hail onfurnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.50,000/- with one surety oflike amount to the satisfaction ofLd. Trial Court till pendency ofappeal subject to deposit of20% ofthefine amount within six weeks before the Trial Court." The petitioner has come up to this court by these petitions under section 482ofthe Code ofCriminalProcedure,1973(Cr.P.C.)to question CRL.M.C.3662/2019etc. Page2of3 © the above mentioned order of the first appellate court, the prayer being restricted atthe hearing to the exception as to the time that has been granted, reference being made to the provision contained in section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The issue raised is with reference to a statutory provision whereunder the first appellate court, if it was imposing such condition as above, in exercise ofitsjudicial discretion,oughtto have considered appropriate time for compliance which,as per section 148(2),may extend to sixty days in the first instance and which may be extended further by thirty days, upon sufficient cause being shown to the court. Given the above limited issue, and the clear statutory prescription, it being a mater essentially between the court and the petitioners, there is no need for formal notice to be issued to the respondent. The learned senior counsel submitted atthe outset thatthe petitioners seek time for compliance with the condition of deposit in terms ofthe orders ofthe appellate court only till 31.08.2019. Given the amount of money which is involved, the request being reasonable, accepting the undertaking that the petitioners will deposit the amount in strict compliance on or before 31.08.2019, the prayer to that extent stands granted. This disposes ofthe petitions and the applications filed therewith. A copy ofthis order shall, however, be served by the petitioners on the complainant as well. Dastiunder the signatures ofCourt Master. K JULY 29,2019/vk CRL.M.C.3662/2019etc. Page3of3
JUDGMENT