The Kerala High Court in Chandran Vs. Amruthavally viewed that there is
no reason to restrict the scope of Section 152 of the Code of CPC to ‘
accidental slip or omission’ of the Court and its ministerial staff
alone. In cases where it is clear that the case is one of “ accidental
slip or omission”, it is the duty of the court to correct the decree in
tune with the actual intend of the Court and the parties.
In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Comments
Post a Comment