IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :01.07.2025 Manish Singla ...Petitioner Versus Prem Lata Sood and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Chetan Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

...

M ANISHA BATRA, J. ( ORAL).

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Criminal Appeal No. 537 of 2025, titled as Manish Singla vs. Prem Lata Sood, whereby, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, as awarded to him in criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’), the learned appellate Court had directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court within a period of 30 days from the date of passing the order.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court, while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M-20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-

2024, decided on 18.01.2024.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2025, passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 15,00,000/-. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 21.05.2025, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing

20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court.

5. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid’s case (supra) as well as afore cited other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of depositing of 20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed the said condition without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to the effect that the appellate Court was firstly required to consider as to whether the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence with