The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 148 of the Amendment Act, 2018 to the case, and the requirement for the petitioners to deposit the specified percentage of the compensation awarded by the trial court as per the said provisions.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

1. This order shall dispose off the aforementioned 33 petitions being identical on facts, involving the common questions of law.

2. The above petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of impugned order(s), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(s), whereby the petitioner(s) have been directed to deposit 20/25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court while suspending their sentence during pendency of the appeal(s) in view of the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short ‘Amendment Act, 2018’).

3. With the consent of parties, the facts have been noticed from CRM-M-3377-2019, which, in brief, are as under:-

Petitioner No.3 i.e. M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company is a Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, whereas petitioner Nos.1 & 2, being partners, are responsible for conducting day-to-day business as well as its affairs.

Initially, the respondent/complainant was also a partner in the above Firm having 7% share, but later on, it was reconstituted on 27.06.2011 and his share was enhanced to 16%. Again, some changes were made by way of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the partners in terms of Flat Buyers Agreements and Mortgage Deeds dated 30.11.2013 & 01.12.2013, respectively. Thereafter, in terms of the above MoU, to compensate the respondent/complainant and in order to discharge the legal liability, petitioner(s) issued different cheques including Cheque No.665643 dated 31.03.2015 for an amount of Rs. 45,84,915/-, drawn on Canara Bank, Panchkula. The said cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant for encashment with his banker-Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sector 11, Panchkula on 06.04.2015, but the same was returned on 07.04.2015 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Consequently, statutory notice dated 06.05.2015 was issued to the petitioner(s) for making the payment, but of no avail and ultimately, that led to the filing of complaint dated 15.06.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘‘Act’‘).

4. Learned trial Court, after following the due procedure, taking into consideration the entire material available on record and upon hearing both sides, concluded that cheque in question was issued by the petitioner(s) in favour of the respondent/complainant for discharging their legal and enforceable liability and the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”, but despite statutory notice, no payment was made. Hence, the petitioner(s) were held guilty under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 30.10.2018 and thereafter, on 13.11.2018, sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay the fine equal to cheque amount plus 1% towards interest as well as litigation expenses jointly and severally within two months from the date of order i.e. 13.11.2018.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner(s) preferred appeal(s) along with application(s) under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula.

6. Paper-Book reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order, issued notice of the appeal to the respondent/complainant and suspended the sentence subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court within four weeks. It transpires that thereafter, an application dated 17.12.2018 (P-5) was filed for extension of four weeks’ ‘more time to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation and the same was allowed, vide order dated 19.12.2018 (P-6).

7. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) that approach of learned Additional Sessions Judge while directing the petitioner(s) to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court as a pre-condition to the suspension