IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 31.10.2025 M/s Shivika Infrastructure Engineers and Contractors ....Petitioner(s)

V/s Harpreet Singh ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate and Ms. Palak Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, 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:

“1. Appellant-convict Sumit Sharma in person being represented by Sh. Sanjeet Vats, Advocate. The appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2025 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2025 vide which he has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Besides this, he has also been asked to pay Rs. 19,00,0000/ - to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of judgment as compensation. Be that as it may be, since there are contentious issues of facts and law involved in this appeal which requires re-appreciation of entire matter, the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

2. Notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent-complainant for

29.10.2025, on filing of copies, etc.

3. Heard on application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal filed by appellant under Section 430 BNSS. Admittedly, the appellantconvict was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months . Besides this, he has also been asked to pay Rs. 19,00,0000/ - to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of passing of judgment as compensation. As such, the issue comes whether the sentence can be suspended even if the appellant is not ready to pay the aforesaid amount. The question was directly considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as “Dalip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.” 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 636, wherein the question was as to what is the true interpretation of Section 357 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, including power of Trial Court to impose compensation and sentence and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an appeal is filed against conviction besides sentence of imprisonment, the Appellate Court can stay payment of amount subject to some conditions including the condition of depositing of part of compensation which must be reasonable. In case title “Surender Singh Deshwal @ Colonel S.S.Deshwal Vs. Virender Gandhi” Law Finder I.D 1482558, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that power of the Appellate Court directing the appellant/accused to deposit the sum which is minimum 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court is mandatory in nature. Similarly in case titled “Surender Singh Deshwal @ Colonel S.S.Deshwal Vs. Virender Gandhi” Law Finder I.D 1661882 Criminal appeal no.1936- 1963 of 2019, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where the appellate court suspends the sentence subject to deposit of certain percentage of compensation amount and when the condition of suspension of sentence is not complied with, the appellate court is right in taking the view that the order of suspension of sentence would be deemed to be vacated. Even in caste title “Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. and others” law finder ID 2313888, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that by adopting purposive interpretation of section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the appellate court would be justified in imposing the condition of deposit but in circumstances where appellate