Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Pawan Goyal – Petitioner
Versus
Anshul Goyal – Respondent
CRM-M-18736-2025, CRM-M-47186-2025, CRM-M-40531-2025, CRM-M-31715-2025, CRM-M-38520-2025, CRM-M-42090-2024, CRM-M-16276-2025, CRM-M-17841-2025, CRM-M-47266-2025
Decided On : 24-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the common order and petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenging suspension of sentence conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of legal questions by the larger bench. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. return of matters for fresh decision on suspension applications. (Para 9) |
| 5. directions for the appellate court’s compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This common order would decide aforementioned nine petitions, as the primary issue involved therein is same.
2. These petitions, under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, have been filed by the petitioner(s) assailing the order(s) passed by the concerned Appellate Court(s) while deciding the application(s) for suspension of sentence, filed by the petitioner(s) alongwith the appeal(s) preferred by them against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, while deciding complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).
In all the cases, respective Appellate Court(s), while allowing the application(s) and suspending the sentence during pendency of the appeal(s), subjected the appellant(s)/petitioners herein to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the Trial Court, within stipulated time. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner(s) have approached this Court by filing the aforementioned petitions.
3. For the sake of brevity, the basic details of these three petitions have been summed up in tabular form, as under:-
(i) CRM-M-18736-2025:-
| 1. | Complaint No. | NACT/1123/2019, under Section 138 of the NI Act. |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Judgment of conviction | 07.02.2025, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad (Trial Court) |
| 3. | Criminal Appeal No. | CRA-102-2025, dated 11.03.2025 |
| 4. | Date of impugned order | 11.03.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Faridabad (Appellate Court) |
(ii) CRM-M-47266-2025:-
| 1. | Complaint No. | 98 of 2018, under Sections 138 to 142 of the NI Act |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Judgment of conviction | 26.05.2025, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh (Trial Court) |
| 3. | Criminal Appeal No. | CRA-198-2025, dated 11.06.2025 |
| 4. | Date of impugned order | 11.06.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (Appellate Court) |
(iii) CRM-M-47186-2025:-
(iv) CRM-M-40531-2025:-
(vi) CRM-M-38520-2025:-
(vii) CRM-M-42090-2024:-
(viii) CRM-M-16276-2025:-
| 1. | Complaint No. | NACT-80-2020, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Judgment of conviction | 29.11.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, District Fazilka (Trial Court) |
| 3. | Criminal Appeal No. | CRA-409-2024, dated 18.12.2024 |
| 4. | Date of impugned order | 18.12.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka (Appellate Court |
(ix) CRM-M-17841-2025:-
| 1 | Complaint No. | NACT-387-2021, under Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC |
| 2 | Judgment of conviction | 29.11.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, District Fazilka (Trial Court) |
| 3 | Criminal Appeal No | CRA-414-2024, dated 19.12.2024 |
| 4 | Date of impugned order | 19.12.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka (Appellate Court) |
4. In matters of M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation (CRM-M-7799-2025), and M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambalica Agro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (CRM-M-8498-2025), the petitioner company, i.e. M/s Coromandel International Limited, which was the complainant before the Trial Court, had assailed the order(s) dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, primarily on the ground that concession of suspension of sentence granted in favour of the respondent(s) therein, is liable to be vacated because the respondent(s) failed to comply with the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, within the stipulated period of 60 days, i.e. from the date of order(s) dated 06.03.2024. In the alternative, prayer was made for directing the respondent(s) to deposit the same.
5. While dealing with the aforesaid two petitions filed by M/s Coromandel International Lim
Petitioners cannot be compelled to deposit 20% of compensation for bail under Section 138 NI Act, as this condition infringes on their right to appeal and to liberty.
The condition to deposit 20% compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act is not absolute; appellate courts may waive or reduce it based on individual circumstances and should not infringe on the rig....
The appellate court can waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if compelling circumstances are demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
