JUDGMENT :

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in CRA-231-2024 titled as Lalit Garg Vs. Dinesh Tyagi whereby the sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act has been suspended subject to condition to deposit 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the trial Court by way of fixed deposit receipt or bank draft in favour of respondent/complainant.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to S.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay compensation worth Rs.32,00,000/- under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment and order dated 16/22.07.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal against the said judgment and order and the Appellate Court vide order dated 20.08.2024 has entertained the appeal and also disposed of application seeking suspension of sentence with direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court on or before 16.10.2024 in the shape of FDR or bank draft in the name of respondent/complainant, failing which the order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to be vacated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023, wherein it was observed as follows:-

"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an petitioner who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said 4 conclusion must be recorded."

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and is of the view that the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 to the extent whereby petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court is not passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the afore-stated settled position of law. While passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and no reason is given by the said Court while issuing aforesaid direction.

5. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court has been imposed for the purpose of suspension of sentence, is here