IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.70887 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.01.2026 Satnam Singh (Dhodhi)

..... Petitioner versus Parveen Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present: Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur to the extent vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation awarded to the learned trial Court in criminal appeal bearing CRA-699-2025 titled as ‘Satnam Singh vs. Parveen Kumar’, which has been filed against judgment dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam in complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as ‘Parveen Kumar vs. Satnam Singh’ in complaint bearing NACT No.210 of 2021. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of impugned order dated 27.11.2025 during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). He has submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam under Section 138 of the Act vide judgment dated 04.11.2025 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and was ordered to pay cheque amount being awarded as compensation to the tune of Rs.4,87,961/- to the complainant. He has further submitted that against the orders dated 04.11.2025, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and the learned Appellate Court, vide its impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), admitted the appeal for hearing and suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to deposit of 20% of the total compensation amount. He has submitted that in view of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, automatic deposit of 10% of the compensation amount, at the appellate stage, does not mandate. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 27.11.2025. However, he has submitted that Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Coromandel International Limited vs. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, in CRM-M-7799-2025 decided on 24.09.2025 has dealt with the issue involved in the present petition and has observed as under:-

“75. The legislative sanction given to an Appellate Court to direct an Appellant who has challenged the conviction, sentence, and compensation amount, by filing an appeal, to deposit at least 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, miserably fails on the proportionality test. The provision of Section 148 is based on proclivities and thus arbitrary; on the contrary, as per the literal and practical meaning, it does not authorize the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence by mandatorily imposing a condition of deposit. The purpose Section 148 intended to achieve was to ensure that at least 20% of the compensation amount is handed over to the holder of the cheque whose debt or other liability amount was withheld due to the dishonor of the cheque. However, due to ambiguous drafting because of the absence of clear procedures for quick recovery, e.g., freezing bank accounts to the extent of the deposit, attachment of property, etc., has led to the recovery of the deposits by imposition of conditions while suspending the sentence in a bailable offence. Furthermore, as per Section 148 of the NI Act, the only individual who can be compelled to deposit is the person who issued the cheque in his personal liability. For corporate entities, signing and issuing a cheque is a ministerial act; the signatory is often an employee working for the company, with a l