The court emphasized that the power to direct the deposit under Section 148 can be exercised at any stage during the pendency of the appeal, and the provision does not affect the substantive right of the accused to defend himself or to prosecute the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-6) as well as Order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in CRA-557-2017 titled as Chander Parkash Vs. Vijay, vide which the present Petitioner who has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 1881”) has been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days, in view of the amended provisions of Section 148 of the 1881 Act and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 917-944 of 2019, decided on 29.05.2019 titled as “Surinder Singh Deswal and others versus Virender Gandhi”.

The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the present petitioner namely Chander Parkash Gupta and one Seema Gupta, who has also independently filed a petition under Section 482 Vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, the present petitioner and Seema Gupta were held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and on 11.10.2017, both the convicts were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay double the amount of the cheque. The compensation, thus, awarded was to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

Two separate appeals were filed against the said judgment of conviction, one by the present petitioner and the other by Seema Gupta. On 07.11.2017, the sentence of the present petitioner was suspended.

Thereafter, on 28.09.2018, an application was filed by the complainant for directing the present petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation in view of the amendment in the Act of 1881. In the said application, it was stated that the present petitioner has not deposited any money before the Court. A reply was filed by the Petitioner to the said application and vide impugned order dated 17.03.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, keeping in view the Amended Act No.20 of 2018 with respect to Section 148 of the Act of 1881 and also in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.917-944 of 2019 decided on 29.05.2019 titled as Surender Singh Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi and also the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Ginni Garments Versus M/s Sethi Garments, CRR-9872-2018, decided on 04.04.2019, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days. The said amount was to be deposited up to 20.05.2021 but however, as is apparent from the Order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P-7), the present Petitioner had only paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment of 20% of the compensation amount and undertaken to pay the remaining amount on the next date of hearing.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in the present case, vide order dated 07.11.2017, the sentence of the petitioner had already been suspended till the decision of the appeal and the petitioner was admitted on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court and the requisite bail bonds were furnished, accepted and attested, thus, the subsequent application moved on 28.09.2018 seeking deposit of 20% amount of the compensation was not maintainable and in fact, the same would amount to a review of the earlier order passed on 07.11.2017.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, at the time of sentencing the petitioner on 11.10.2017, it had been observed that the amount of compensation would be payable to the complainant in case that order attains finality after the decision of the appeal/revision,