IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31175-2025 Decided on : 01.07.2025 Balwinder Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus Kirpal Singh and another . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, is for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-423-2024, titled as ‘Balwinder Singh v. Kirpal Singh’, whereby, learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

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, Abohar, under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2024 (P-1) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and was also ordered to pay compensation 1.5 times (Rs.10,05,000/-) of the cheque amount to the complainant and in default of payment further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Counsel further submits that challenging the judgment dated

27.11.2024 (P-1), petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka and thereupon learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 25.12.2024 (P-2) suspended the order of sentence qua petitioner, subject to the deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Due to the financial constraints, petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 25.12.2024 (P-2), however counsel submits that even otherwise also, impugned order dated 25.12.2024 (P-2) passed by the learned Appellate Court is in violation of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. 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).

3. 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.

4. This Court finds that the plea of the petitioner is that impugned order dated 25.12.2024 (P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, 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 v. The State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107 : Law Finder Doc Id #2680202’.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bahndari case (Supra) and Muskan Enterprises case (Supra) has laid down certain para