JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners impugning the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, to the extent, that the execution of sentence and order appealed against has been suspended qua petitioner No.2 (herein) subject to depositing of 20% of the amount of compensation. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:

"Present: Appellant/convict No.1-Company.

Appellant/convict No.2 in person with counsel Sh. Gagandeep Goel.

Criminal appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence and application seeking stay of recovery of compensation received by entrustment. These be checked and registered.

Heard. As there are arguable points involved in the appeal, it is admitted for hearing.

A perusal of impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2024 and order of sentence of even date reveals that appellant-convict No.2 Toni has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation to the tune of the cheques amount i.e. Rs.11,49,946/- to the complainant within period of two months, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

Heard on the application under Section 430 of BNSS.

Since the decision of appeal will take some time so the execution of the sentence and order appealed against stands suspended and the appellant-convict No.2 is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation within two months and on the condition that he will appear on each and every date of hearing, failing which this order shall cease to operate.

Requisite bail bonds be furnished before learned trial Court within seven days from today.

Application under Section 430 of BNSS stands dispose of.

Notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent for 14.10.2024, subject to filing of requisite copy of grounds of appeal, PF, RC, etc.

Trial Court record be also summoned on the date fixed.

Date of Order: 04.10.2024

Ashwani Kumar

Additional Sessions Judge

Chandigarh/UID-HR0106"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner No.2 is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court on account of financial difficulty. Learned counsel has further argued that due and requisite opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners especially to petitioner No.2 before passing of the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 wherein condition for deposit of 20% of the amount of the compensation has been stipulated by the learned Sessions Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of the petitioners especially petitioner No.2. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper-book.

4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person's right to appeal and the complainant's right to speedy justice. The amount deposited can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supr