IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.01.2025 Harpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside of order dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in CRA-17/2025 titled as Harpal Singh Vs. Amrik Singh whereby the sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been suspended subject to the condition to deposit 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the trial Court, within next 20 days.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to RI for a period of one year and further to pay compensation worth Rs.5 lacs under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal against the said judgment and order and the Appellate Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 has admitted the appeal and also disposed of application seeking suspension of sentence with direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, as per provision contained in Section 148 of the NI Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023, wherein it was observed as follows:-

“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 an 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.”

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and is of the view that the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 to the extent whereby petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court is not passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the settled position of law, as discussed above. While passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) and no reason is given by the said Court while issuing aforesaid directions.

5. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court has been imposed