Negotiable Instruments Act 1881- Section 148 –Deposit may not be ordered if the Appellate Court finds a case to be exceptional not calling for a deposit and the reasons for not ordering a deposit are recorded in the order- There could arise a case before the Appellate Court where such court is capable of forming an opinion, even in course of considering as to what would be the appropriate quantum of fine or compensation to be kept in deposit, that the impugned conviction and the consequent sentence recorded/imposed by the trial court is so wholly incorrect and erroneous that it is only a matter of time for the same to be set aside and that ordering a deposit would be unnecessarily burdensome for the appellant. Such firm opinion could be formed on a plain reading of the order, such as, the conviction might have been recorded and sentence imposed without adherence to the mandatory procedural requirements of the N.I. Act prior to/at the time lodging of the complaint by the complainant rendering the proceedings vitiated, or the trial court might have rejected admissible evidence from being led and/or relied on inadmissible evidence which was permitted to be led, or the trial court might have recorded an order of conviction which is its ipse dixit, without any assessment/analysis of the evidence and/or totally misappreciating the evidence on record, or the trial court might have passed an order failing to disclose application of mind and/or sufficient reasons thereby establishing the link between the appellant and the offence, alleged and found to be proved, or that the compensation awarded is so excessive and outrageous that it fails to meet the proportionality test : all that, which would evince an order to be in defiance of the applicable law and, thus, liable to be labelled as perverse. These instances, which are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, may not arise too frequently but its possibility cannot be completely ruled out- Referred to Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (2023) 10 SCC 446. (Para 26-27)
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881- Section 148 -Once the Appellate Court is satisfied that a deposit is indeed called for, in an appropriate case, such court’s power is in no way fettered to call upon the appellant to deposit more than 20% of the awarded compensation, but in no case can it be less than 20%- Referred to Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (2023) 10 SCC 446. (para 26)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482-High court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata (Para 15)- Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. (Para 19)
Res Judicata –The principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding – The principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in the Cr. PC akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC. the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding. (Para 14-18)
Interpretation of Statutes – User of the verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index for determining whether such statute is mandatory or directory in character. The legislative intent has to be gathered looking into other provisions of the enactment, which can throw light to guide one towards a proper determination. Although the legislature is often found to use ‘may’, ‘shall’ or ‘must’ interchangeably, ordinarily ‘may’, having an element of discretion, is directory whereas ‘shall’ and ‘must’ are used in the sense of a mandatory provision. Also, while the general impression is that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ are intended to have their natural meaning, it is the duty of the court to gather the real intention of the legislature by carefully analysing the entire statute, the section and the phrase/expression under consideration. A provision appearing to be directory in form could be mandatory in substance. The substance, rather than the form, being relevant, ultimately it is a matter of construction of the statute in question that is decisive- interpretation must depend on the text and the context – the text representing the texture and the context giving it colour – and, that interpretation would be best, which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. While wearing the glasses of the statute-maker, the enactment has to be looked at as a whole and it needs to be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word means and whether it is designed to fit into the scheme of the entire enactment. While no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation, statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 24-25)