IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026.

Sunil ...Petitioner.

Versus Mewa Lal Shah ...Respondent.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

The present petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in an appeal No.CRA-51-2026, arising out of judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana in Complaint No.NACT-54 of 2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, to the extent, whereby, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court on the date fixed.

2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) was filed by the complainant alleging that the accused in discharge of his legal liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque bearing No.425890 dated

26.10.2020, amounting to Rs.9,85,000/-. On presentation, the same were dishonoured and returned with the remarks ‘Account Blocked’ vide memo dated 27.01.2021.

3. Vide judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay 50% of cheque amount by way of compensation (in addition to the amount of cheque in question) for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount on the date fixed.

4. 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 and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023(4) RCR ( C riminal) 296 , wherein it was held that-

"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 a 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."

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not.

6. In the present case, while imposing condition of depositing 20% of the compen