The court established the interpretation of Section 148 and 143-A of the NI Act in the context of suspending the sentence and imposing conditions on the appellant/convict.

JUDGMENT

1. Memo of appearance filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record.

2. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for quashing of impugned orders dated 18.05.2022 and 06.08.2022 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2022 filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, in Criminal Complaint No. 706-H dated 06.10.2020 titled 'M/s Sidhant Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinay Kumar' filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act'), vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within a period of 60 days in view of Section 148 of the NI Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-company (respondent No. 2 herein) deals in sales and repairs of motor vehicles and petitioner-accused was working as Store In-charge in the company from very long time. During audit of the store, the parts worth Rs.30,00,000/-were found missing. The petitioner admitted in writing his liability to pay Rs. 11,00,000/- out of the aforesaid total amount of Rs.30,00,000/-along with two other employees, namely, Dinesh Saini and Sandeep Range. In order to discharge his liability, petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 010629 dated 11.07.2020, amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/-, drawn on Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Jindal Chowk Branch, Hisar, in favour of complainant-company. However, on presentation said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds', vide memo dated 14.07.2020. Despite legal notice dated 12.08.2020, petitioner has not made any payment. Hence, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.

4. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2022, the petitioner was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- i.e. the cheuque amount, to the complainant company under Section 143(1) (proviso) of the NI Act read with Section 357(1)(3) Cr.P.C., within a period of one month from the passing of judgment.

5. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal along with the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and staying operation of impugned order regarding compensation during the pendency of the appeal. While disposing off the application for suspension of sentence of the applicant, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of total compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within 60 days from the date of that order i.e. 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) during the pendency of said appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) is illegal. It is argued that the said direction is illegal inasmuch as in case, the petitioner is not able to pay the money as ordered, then the only course open would be to recover the amount by following the procedure as stipulated under Section 421 Cr.P.C. and the order of suspension of sentence could not be vacated, much less, automatically. In order to substantiate the above argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 06.07.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-4244-2022 'Amit Kumar (deceased) through his LR's mother SmL Sushila Devi vs. State of Haryana and another'.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2- complainant has submitted that the impugned order is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ CoL S.S. Deswal & Ors. vs. Vir