IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Pardeep Seth ....Petitioner(s)

V/s M/s PK Verma & Company and another ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, 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:

“An appeal has been received by way of entrustment. It be registered. There are arguable points in this appeal as per grounds of appeal as such, the same is admitted for hearing on merits subject to all just exceptions.

Along with this appeal, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been moved by the appellant. In view of the fact that the applicant/appellant was already on bail during trial before the trial court, it is justified to suspend his sentence during pendency of this appeal. However, in view of the amendment of Negotiable Instruments Act vide Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, he is directed to appear before the trial court/duty Magistrate within 15 days immediately proceeding the date of this order and on his doing so his sentence is ordered to be suspended on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, along with that 20% of compensation amount imposed upon him be also deposited before the trial court on the same day. Appeal stands adjourned to 29.11.2025 for issuance of notice upon the respondent along with grounds of appeal. Record of trial court be also requisitioned for the date fixed. Compliance report be also called from learned Trial Court.”

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 30.10.2025 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 justice. The amount deposited can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.2023 (10)

SCC 446; relevant whereof reads as under:

“6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be