IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

133 CRM-M-9821-2025 Date of Decision:20.02.2025 Gurnam Singh . . . . Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and another . . . . Respondent ****

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

Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, 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 31.01.2024 and 05.08.2024 (Annexure P- 3 and P-5 ) respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-35-2024, titled as ‘Gurnam Singh Vs. Suresh’, 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 First Class, Kurukshetra, under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 02.01.2024(P-1) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and was also ordered to pay compensation i.e. double the impugned cheque amount.

3. Counsel further submitted that by challenging the judgment dated 02.01.2024, petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and thereupon learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) suspended the order of sentence qua petitioner, subject to the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount with the aid of Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, plea of waiving off the deposit of 20% amount has been dismissed separately vide order dated 05.08.2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Due to the financial constraints, petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 31.01.2024, however counsel submits that even otherwise also, impugned order dated 31.01.2024 and 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court are in violation of the law as 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 to deposit 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).

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

This Court is of the view that dispute raised through the present petition can be decided in limine and without calling the other side here, because the way this Court intends to dispose of the present petition, no prejudice would be suffered by the complainant qua his rights.

5. This Court finds that the plea of the petitioner is that impugned orders dated 31.01.2024 and 05.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra 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 Ja