IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

121 CRM-M-7132-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision:07.02.2025 Ajay Mehra . . . . Petitioner Vs.

Surinder Singh . . . . Respondent ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR,. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ****

Present: Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, is for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P- 3), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Criminal Appeal No.CRA- 244/2024, titled as ‘Ajay Mehra Vs. Surinder Singh’, whereby, learned Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and he was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 30.07.2024 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and was also ordered to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only).

Counsel further submitted that challenging the judgment dated

30.07.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar and thereupon learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) suspended the order of sentence qua petitioner, subject to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with the aid of Section 148 of the Act. Due to the financial constraints, petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 30.08.2024, however counsel submits that even otherwise also, impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court is in violation of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2024(1) SCC (Cri) 90, wherein it has been held that while considering the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an appellant who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider, whether the appeal before it, is an exceptional case or not, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence, but without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. And, 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, which is missing in the present case. It is submitted that learned Court below has not appreciated the facts of the case and other circumstances of the petitioner, as per mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra).

3. On advance notice, Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that sentence of the petitioner was suspended by learned Appellate Court subject to the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by learned trial Court. However, petitioner did not comply with the same.

5. This Court finds that the plea of the petitioner is that impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is without adhering to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra), as also in the case of ‘Muskan Enterprises and another Vs. The State of Punjab and another’, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107, Law Finder Doc Id #2680202’

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bahndari case (Supra) and Muskan Enterprises case (Supra) has laid down certain parameters while considering Section 148 of the Act for the purpose of interpretation. It has been held that the object of Section 148 of the Act is not mandatorily to be followed rather, it is directive and the direction to pay or deposit 20% of the compensation amount, which is maximum, is to be passed by the concerned Court after examining th