Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 24.02.2023, Annexure P-1 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in case bearing CRA-59-2023 titled as ‘Harmeet Kaur vs. Vijay Kumar’, whereby a condition was imposed on the petitioner to pay 20% of compensation amount to the complainant-respondent.

2. Learned counsel submits that a condition for the grant of bail cannot be made onerous for the petitioner. The appellate Court has committed an error as no reason has been assigned for imposing a condition while granting the suspension of sentence. Still further, the non-deposit of compensation cannot be a ground for vacating the order granting suspension of sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Vivek Sahni vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. , 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 2668, Ajay Vinodchandra Shah vs. State of Maharashtra , 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 436 and Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. , (2007) 6 SCC 528 .

3. Heard and perused the file.

4. The core question that emanates in this petition for determination is “Whether on account of non-payment of the amount as directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, suspension of sentence granted to the appellant will be automatically or consequentially cancelled?”

5. Before delving upon the merits of the case, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant statutory provision involved, which reads thus:

“148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:

Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.

(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.

(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:

Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.”

6. At the outset, it may be accentuated that the Objects and Reasons of Section 148 of NI Act being brought into force by the Act No. 20 of 2018 w.e.f. 01.09.2018, spelt out that when a person convicted under Section 138 NI Act, prefers an appeal, Section 148 NI Act enjoins upon the Court, to order deposit of a minimum 20% of the amount of fine or compensation awarded. The provision begins with the non-obstante clause which gives it an overriding effect over the provisions of the Cr.P.C., ins