Case Title: Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan
The Madras High Court observed that orders passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are interlocutory in nature and are outside the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Court also intricately took into consideration the intent behind introducing Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been explained by this very Court in L.G.R. Enterprises and Ors. vs. P. Anbazhagan. It states that- “....because of the delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to the 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.”
Further, to remove all doubts the Court also referred to Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has described what constitutes an interlocutory order and had made a reference to Halsbury’s Laws of England which is:
“12. Ordinarily and generally the expression “interlocutory order” has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term “final order”. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England at p. 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606: “... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required.”
The Court, therefore, observed 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 the 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. It was highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, non-passing of such an order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in the culmination of proceedings.