IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.01.2025 KESAR SINGH .. Petitioner Vs.

M/S MOHIT COMMISSION AGENT ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

...

S UMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to the extent, that the execution of sentence and order appealed against has been suspended qua the petitioner (herein) subject to depositing of 20% of the amount of compensation. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:

“Present: Shri G.S. Nandpuri, Advocate, counsel for appellant.

This appeal is received by way of entrustment. Heard. Since there are fairly arguable points involved in this appeal, as such, the same is admitted for hearing subject to all just exceptions. It be registered. Notice of the appeal be given to the respondent for 12.03.2025. Trial Court record be summoned for the said date.

Alongwith the appeal, an application for suspending the sentence of imprisonment and to release the appellant on bail till the disposal of the appeal, has also been filed. Appellant/accused was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2024 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay the compensation equivalent to the amount of the cheque in question i.e. Rs.4,40,000/- vide order of sentence dated 19.11.2024. The compensation amount imposed by the trial Court has not been deposited by the appellant/accused. The disposal of appeal is likely to take sufficient time. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of the appellant is suspended during pendency of the appeal and appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of llaqa/Duty Magistrate within 15 days from today, with the direction to the appellant to appear in Court on each and every date of hearing.

Perusal of the judgment dated 19.11.2024 further reveals that the accused is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,40,000/-. 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, with trial Court within 60 days from today.

If the accused fails to pay the 10% of total compensation amount within the stipulated period, the order of suspension shall automatically stand vacated.

Dated: 18.12.2024.

(Bagicha Singh)

Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.UID No.PB0264.”

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 18.12.2024 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, whereby the condition has been imposed for deposit of 20% compensation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instr