IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.07.2025 MOHIT ALIAS SONU ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, is for setting aside of the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) and further proceedings, whereby it was ordered to the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount within one month and order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the ASJ, Rohtak, whereby bail of petitioner is cancelled and the order of suspension of sentence is also set aside.

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 1^st Class, Rohtak, under Section 138 of the Act, vide order of sentence dated 18.04.2024 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was also ordered to pay compensation of equivalent to the cheque amount to the complainant.

Counsel further submits that challenging the judgment dated

15.05.2025 (P-3), petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and thereupon learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (P-3) 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 15.05.2025 (P-3), however counsel submits that even otherwise also, impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (P-3), 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 15.05.2025 (P-3), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, 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 parameters while considering Section 148 of the Act for the purpose of interpretation. It has been