IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Jagir Singh ....Petitioner(s)

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

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kehar Singh Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, 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:

“Arguments heard on the point of waiving of condition of payment of 20 % payment of the cheque amount.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that applicant-appellant is unable to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, at this stage and Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act uses the word ‘may’ which implies that it is merely a directory provision and not mandatory. While arguing on these lines, prayer has been made for waiving of the payment of 20 % of the total amount of the cheque in question.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant- appellant and argued that there is no provision for waiving condition of payment of 20% of the compensation amount. While arguing on these lines, bail of appellant is sought to be cancelled.

4. Heard. File perused. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 26.3.2025 the sentence awarded to appellant was suspended during pendency of the present appeal subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 75,000/-with one surety in the like amount by the appellant.

However, the Court intended to impose condition precedent of 20% payment of compensation amount under Section 148-A of the N.I.Act before the sentence can be suspended but on the request of counsel for appellant that such order needs to be passed on merits and should not be passed in a mechanical manner. To this limited extent this issue was kept pending till the appearance of respondent and upon his appearance, this aspect was ordered to be decided. It was further observed that bail shall be dependent upon decision of payment of part of compensation amount under Section 148-A N.I.Act.

5. Now, the respondent has put in appearance through counsel and no ground is made out to waive the aforesaid compensation amount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India case titled “Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others”, 2024 (1) SCC (Crl.) 90, has held that the sentence of the appellant is liable to be suspended without imposing condition of deposit of 20% compensation amount. Appellate Court must examine whether exceptional circumstances exist to waive such requirement. As the appellate Court thinks that there is no exceptional circumstances exist to waive such requirement, so this case does not come within the exception, accordingly appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.

Now the case is adjourned to 26.09.2025 for awaiting compliance of the aforesaid order, arguments on main appeal and record of learned trail Court be also summoned for the date fixed.”

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 26.08.2025 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 takin