IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.8719 of 2025 Roop Chand Tople ... Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Same Duetz Fahr ( India) Pvt.Ltd., Nos.71 & 72, M.Sipcot Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore District 632 203 Tamilnadu Rep.by it Authorized rep.M.P.Ramesh .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 428 of Cr.Pc. to set aside and modify the condition passed in Crl.M.P.No.422/2025 in C.A.No.43 of 2025 dated 09.01.2025 to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the trial Court to the credit in C.C.No.2450 of 2013 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Geetha Rani For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.422 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.43 of 2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby imposed the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.2450 of 2013 on the file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.

3. After a full-fledged trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one year of simple imprisonment and also ordered him to pay a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- (the cheque amount). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and also filed an application to suspend the sentence. The Appellate Court, while suspending the sentence, imposed the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and other, it has been held as follows:-

“ 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused 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 conclusion must be recorded.

8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.”

5. Thus, it is clear that though the appellant failed to plea that there is an exceptional circumstances for not to impose any condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, under Section 148 of NI Act, the accused filed an application for grant of suspension of sentence. Therefore, the Court cannot expect the accused to plea that it is an exceptional case for not imposing any condition while suspending the sentence as contemplated under Section 148 of NI Act.

6. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 148 of NI Act as follows:-

“