IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner V/s Sukhmahal Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Pardeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, to the extent, that the execution of sentence and order appealed against has been suspended qua petitioner (herein) subject to depositing of 20% of the amount of compensation. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:

“Present: Appellant/convict Jagjit Singh in person assisted by Sh.

Kuljeet Singh, Advocate.

Instant Criminal Appeal has been received by way of entrustment. It be checked and registered. Since there are arguable points involved in the present appeal, same is admitted for hearing. Alongwith the appeal, an application has been moved by the appellant-convict under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during the pendency of appeal.

Arguments on the said application heard.

Learned counsel for the appellant-convict has submitted that the learned Trial Court had granted the concession of Section 389 (ii) Cr.P.C to the appellant-convict until 01.03.2025. The present appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and will take some time to ripe and be decided. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the same is, hereby, allowed and sentence imposed on the appellant-convict is ordered to be suspended and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial court within seven working days. Meanwhile, the sentence imposed upon the appellant-convict shall remain suspended. He is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days from today as per Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, failing which the same shall be recovered from him under Section 421 Cr.P.C.

Let notice of the appeal be given to the respondent-complainant for 01.05.2025 on filing of PF, copy of grounds of appeal etc. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court for information and necessary action.

Date of Order: 28.02.2025 (Arvind Kumar)

Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra/UID-HR0257”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court on account of financial difficulty. Learned counsel has further argued that due and requisite opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 wherein condition for deposit of 20% of the amount of the compensation has been stipulated by the learned Sessions Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person’s right to appeal and the complainant’s right to speedy justi