Obligatory For Appellate Court To Grant Interim Relief In Admitted Appeal During Its Pendency: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court stated that it was obligatory for an Appellate Court to grant interim relief in an admitted appeal during its pendency.
“One cannot permit a swinging pendulum to continue swinging during the pendency of the appeal.” The Court further stated that the automatic cancellation of a bail order in case of failure of deposition of fine was punitive and against the law.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “Appellate Court has erred in law while rejecting the stay application of the appellant/petitioner, by which it was prayed by the appellant/petitioner to stay the fine of Rs.4,00,000/- imposed by the trial court while convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner before the Appellate Court.”
Advocate Lal Bahadur Khan represented the petitioner, while AGA Hari Shanker Bajpai appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, having been convicted and fined by the trial court in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), subsequently lodged a statutory appeal seeking bail and a stay on the fine to be deposited.
The petitioner contended that despite the admission of the appeal, the Appellate Court declined to issue a stay order. It was argued that pursuant to Section 148 of the Act, the Appellate Court had the authority to order a party to deposit a sum, constituting a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation determined by the Trial Court, within a stipulated period.
The High Court discussed that Section 148(2) of the Act provided that the amount referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
The Court noted that the Appellate Court had admitted the appeal of the petitioner and also allowed the Bail Application but despite admitting the appeal, it erroneously rejected the stay and operation of the impugned order in terms of deposition of fine.
Consequently, the High Court modified the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit twenty percent of the fine imposed by the Trial Court within sixty days from the date of the judgment. Moreover, the Court affirmed the continuation of bail granted by the Appellate Court to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Mangla Prasad Singh v. State Of U.P & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:26822)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Lal Bahadur Khan
Respondents: AGA Hari Shanker Bajpai
