IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Date of Uploading: 11.12.2025 Charan Gir ....Petitioner(s)

V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to the extent, that the execution of sentence and order appealed against has been suspended qua petitioner (herein) subject to depositing of 20% of the amount of compensation. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:

“Heard. Along with main appeal, an application under section 389 Cr.P.C for suspending the sentence of imprisonment and releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal has also been filed. Heard. Appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.L. Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.1. for the period not exceeding three years. As the disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, hence the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant/accused is suspended till the decision of the appeal, subject to furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within a period of 15 days from today. Accused is directed to appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing. Bail bonds after acceptance and attestation shall be transmitted to this Court.

Perusal of the judgment dated 20.02.2024 further reveals that the accused is directed pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, in the light of the amended provision of Section 148 of the NI Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4948-2975/2019 Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal Versus Virender Gandhi decided on 29.05.2019, the appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court within 60 days from today.

If the accused fails to pay the 20% of total compensation amount within the stipulated period, the order of suspension shall automatically stands vacated.

Let, notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent for

03.09.2024.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner 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 petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner 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 compla