The legal point established is that non-compliance with the condition of suspension of sentence, such as the deposit of compensation amount, can lead to the cancellation of bail or suspension of sentence.

JUDGMENT :

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the above noted three petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, for facility of reference, the facts are taken from CRM-M-16036-2021, being the lead case.

2. The petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure P.1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby having failed to comply with the earlier order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the said Court, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, and he was ordered to be taken into custody.

3. Vide judgment dated 31.01.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ellanabad, the petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) and vide order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the said Court, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Vide order dated 02.03.2019, passed by the said Court, the appeal was admitted and the sentence of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Later, the respondent had moved an application for issuance of directions to the petitioner (appellant) to pay 20% of the compensation amount, as per Section 148 of the Act (wrongly mentioned as Section 143-A in the application).

5. After contest by the petitioner, the said application was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 22.07.2019, concluding as under:-

“12. It is claimed by accused-person that amount due itself in dispute because an amount of Rs. 1.25 crore has been debited as interest in the account of respondent-Company, but it cannot be looked into because appellant-respondent issued cheque which gives rise to a presumption that this amount was due against company and appellant was its Director. It is claimed that he is suffering from cancer. That may be true, but it does not absolve him of his liability. In these circumstances, he is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with the Court within two months. It is also held that in case this appeal is accepted, he would be able to recover this amount from complainant.”

6. However, when the petitioner failed to comply with the said order, the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned order, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and he was ordered to be taken into custody.

7. As noticed above, the petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, has filed the present petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that for non deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, the bail granted to the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled. While relying upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vivek Sahni and Others vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 2019 (4) RCR (Criminal) 614, it is contended that the failure to deposit the 20% of the compensation amount cannot lead to cancellation of bail granted and rather the said amount should be recovered as per Section 421 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that SLP against the said judgment, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in limine, vide order dated 02.12.2019. It is, thus, submitted that the finding of the Coordinate Bench, having attained finality with the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Sessions Judge, ought not to have cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Vociferously terming the said order as illegal, a prayer is made to set aside the same.

9. However, I do not find any merit in the said arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It may be noticed that earlier the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment delivered in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others vs. Virender Gandhi, 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 186, held that the amendment carried out in Section 148 of the