IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:24.02.2025 Ramandeep Singh . . . . Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Manjit Singh and another . . . . Respondent(s)

****

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

Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Question, arising before this Court is; whether at the time of suspending the sentence in the appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’), filed by the convict, payment of 20% of the compensation amount, as ordered by learned trial Court, is required to be mandatorily directed in mechanical manner for its payment by the appellant by virtue of Section 148 of the Act of 1881.

Another aspect, requiring its decision is whether the 20% of the compensation amount can be waived off or reduced by the Appellate Court by examining the totality of the circumstances, which would be emerging from the facts of the appeal pending before it and varies from case to case.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner, has been convicted by learned Trial Court in the complaint filed by respondent-Manjit Singh (complainant herein), under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, on account of bouncing of a cheque bearing No.026826 dated 09.08.2019 amounting to Rs.8,53,000/- (Rupees eight lacs fifty three thousand only).

Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 07.09.2024 awarded the substantive sentence of a period of two years rigorous imprisonment. Apart this, learned trial Court ordered to pay the compensation equivalent to the cheque amount and in default of payment, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, learned Appellate Court while exercising its power under Section 430 of BNSS (389 Cr.P.C.), granted bail to the petitioner by suspending the order of sentence and also directed to pay 20% of the amount of awarded compensation to the respondent/complainant, to be deposited in the shape of FDR. For reference impugned order dated 10.10.2024 is reproduced herebelow:

“Present :- Appellant on bail with counsel Sh. A.K. Charaya, Advocate Appeal has been received by way of entrustment. Heard. There are considerable arguable points in this appeal. Hence, the same is admitted for hearing. It be registered.

Along-with the appeal, appellant has also filed an application for suspension of sentence and for his release on bail. Heard. During the course of trial before the learned Lower court, the appellant was on bail. The lower court record is yet to be summoned and therefore, disposal of appeal shall take considerable period of time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the appellant in custody for an indefinite period. Therefore, the application is allowed and sentence order awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court is suspended and appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

with one surety of the like amount subject to the following conditions:-

1. He will furnish the bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate within 30 days from today.

2. He will deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the Trial Court in favour of the appellant within 90 days from passing of this order before the Trial Court, in the shape of FDR which may be prepared in his own name in any nationalized bank and original FDR be submitted before the trial Court which shall write to the bank concerned, not to release the amount of FDR without orders of Court. In case said 20% of compensation amount is not deposited by the appellant within the stipulated period, the bail granted to the appellant and his suspension of sentence shall automatically stands cancelled and learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the applicant/appellant in accordance with the law. Bail bonds after attestation be sent to this court for record. Notice to responden