IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8077-2025 Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 HARISH GARG ... PETITIONER VERSUS SUNIL GUPTA ... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.(ORAL)

The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, in CRA No. 08 of 2025 titled as ‘Harish Garg Versus Sunil Gupta’, which is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction (Annexure P-2) dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panchkula, in NACT No.769 dated 19.07.2017 titled ‘Sunil Gupta Versus Harish Garg’, filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, vide which, while deciding the application for suspension of sentence, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month as a condition for suspension of sentence.

2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dated 15.01.2025 is illegal and arbitrary in nature having been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He inter alia contends that while in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), the learned appellate Court has erroneously directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month as a condition for grant of suspension of sentence. He contends that this has been done without considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2023 (10) SCC 446; to the effect that imposition of the condition of 20% for deposit of compensation amount is not an absolute rule and the learned appellate Court should have considered the exceptional circumstances for waiving of the said condition to which no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before imposing the aforesaid condition. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated

15.01.2025.

3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioner wherein he was summoned to face trial on the allegations that in discharge of his existing liability, petitioner had issued cheques amounting to ₹16,00,000/- to the respondent and on presenting the same, one cheque dated 05.05.2017 for Rs.5 lakhs was dishonoured by the Bank with the remarks “funds insufficient” for which the complaint No. NACT-769-2017 was filed. After conclusion of trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, convicted the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed the appeal bearing No. CRA-08-2025 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. The learned appellate Court while deciding the appeal ordered suspension of sentence but with the condition that the petitioner will deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month.

4. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, it is worth mentioning here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) had observed as under:-

“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 righ