Verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index: Supreme Court

The appellants, Muskan Enterprises and its proprietor, were initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate in Amloh, Fatehgarh Sahib, leading to a two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the proprietor and an order to pay double the cheque amount as compensation. Upon appealing, the Sessions Court of Fatehgarh Sahib suspended the sentence and granted bail to the proprietor. However, the Sessions Court also imposed a condition requiring the appellants to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within sixty days, a measure intended to ensure compliance and prevent abuse of the legal process.

Disagreeing with this condition, the appellants challenged it before the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC). The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal vs Virender Gandhi, which mandated such deposits under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unwilling to accept this outcome, Muskan Enterprises filed a subsequent petition under the same section, seeking to revisit the deposit condition in light of a more recent Supreme Court decision.

In the ensuing appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in dismissing the subsequent petition. Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the procedural frameworks governing criminal and civil cases are distinct, and principles like res judicata do not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jamboo Bhandari vs Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., which granted appellate courts discretion to waive the mandatory 20% deposit in exceptional cases where such a requirement would be unjust or impede the appellant’s right to appeal.

Justice Datta criticized the High Court’s rigid adherence to the earlier Surinder Singh Deswal ruling, arguing that the newer interpretation in Jamboo Bhandari should prevail. He underscored that legislative intent, as reflected in the mixed usage of “may” and “shall” in Section 148, indicates a balance between mandatory and discretionary powers. This nuanced interpretation allows appellate courts to exercise discretion based on the specifics of each case, ensuring that legal procedures do not become oppressive or obstructive to justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision mandates the Sessions Court to re-evaluate the necessity of the 20% deposit condition in Muskan Enterprises’ case, considering the principles laid down in Jamboo Bhandari. Justice Datta refrained from prescribing a specific outcome, leaving the discretion to the lower court to determine whether the deposit remains appropriate based on the merits of the case.

Legal experts view this judgment as a significant affirmation of judicial discretion and flexibility in criminal appeals. It underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural safeguards do not hinder the fundamental right to a fair appeal. By overturning the High Court’s dismissal, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of context and equitable considerations in the application of legal provisions.

The State of Punjab, represented by Senior Advocate Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed disappointment with the High Court’s earlier decision but welcomed the Supreme Court’s directive to re-examine the deposit condition. The appellants, Muskan Enterprises, hailed the judgment as a victory for justice and procedural fairness.

As the case is remitted back to the Sessions Court, stakeholders anticipate a more balanced approach to enforcing financial conditions in criminal appeals, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving commercial disputes and cheque dishonor offenses.