IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41804-2025 Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 M/S SANDHYA KAUSHIK AND ANOTHER ..…PETITIONERS VERSUS E9 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LIMITED ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the respondents.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J. (ORAL)

By virtue of the present petition, petitioner is inter-alia seeking quashing of impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the operation of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chandigarh, was stayed till the disposal of the appeal and the sentence imposed upon petitioner, the order of imposition of compensation was suspended till disposal of the appeal, with a direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that imposing condition of deposit of 20% of the cheque amount, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, by the first Appellate Court, is too onerous. Petitioner is facing extreme financial crunch and is not able to abide by the aforesaid condition. It is further the submission of learned counsel that the learned first Appellate Court proceeded on an assumption that deposit of minimum 20% of the cheque amount is an absolute rule to entertain the appeal. Even though, petitioner-appellant brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the financial distress faced by her and requested for modifying the said condition but no heed was paid. Rather during the pendency of the present petition, her application for grant of exemption from appearing in the Court was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court in a purely mechanical manner. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M-7799-2025 decided on 24.09.2025, wherein while dealing with appeals u/s 138 NI Act, following four questions were framed and answered:

(a) Whether imposition of condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, is sustainable or not, while deciding the application for suspension of sentence in an appeal, when the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is still awaiting confirmation?

(b) Whether the right of the convict-appellant being on bail in pending appeal, can be subjected to the compliance of direction to pay 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act?

(c) Whether the right of bail can be taken away by the Appellate Court, where final adjudication of the appeal is pending, due to non-compliance of the direction to pay 20%

of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, for any justifiable or un-justifiable reason, as discussed in the cases of Jamboo Bhandari¹ and Muskan Enterprises² (d) Whether it is a pre-condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court for getting an appeal decided?

While answering to the first question, it was held as under:

18. However, while dealing with the proposition of law, as done in Surinder Singh Deswal's case (supra), in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court enlarged the scope of discretion even to the extent that there can be hundred percent waiving of the deposit of 20% of the compensation/fine amount by the Appellate Court, if the appeal and the other circumstance(s) in its view falls under the category of exception. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that such a situation was visualized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, especially where the plea of suspension of sentence is to be considered without imposing any condition.

22) The words, "Whether sufficient ground has been made out by the appellants to persuade the Sessions Court not to order any deposit is left entirely to its discretion and satisfaction", used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muskan