##PAGE1##

CRM-M-4224-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

144 CRM-M-4224-2026

Date of decision: 05.02.2026

Jaskaran Singh @ Manga ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present : Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 26.11.2025

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, vide which, while

suspending the sentence of the appellant awarded on 27.10.2025 (by learned

trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. NACT-14-2023 titled as ‘Vikrant vs.

M/s MJ Karyana Store and another), petitioner (appellant before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Jind) was directed to deposit 20% of the

compensation.

2. Vide judgment of conviction/sentence dated 27.10.2025 passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SBS Nagar, the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and six months for commission of offence punishable under

Section 138 of NI Act and was further directed to pay compensation i.e.

Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment, rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two months. Dissatisfied with the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and

order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar.

The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 26.11.2025, suspended the

HAMANT

2026.02.06 19:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M-4224-2026 2

sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing of 20% of the compensation

amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the

correct perspective and imposed the condition of deposit of 20% of the

compensation amount. Learned counsel submits that petitioner belonging to

the economically weaker class is facing acute financial crunch. He has a

good case on merits and that the learned trial Court did not meticulously

analyse the evidence adduced on the case file. In the light of the submissions

advanced herein above, it has been urged that the conditions so imposed by

the learned Appellate Court being arbitrary and in violation of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State

Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (180) SCL 373

be set aside/modified.

4. Heard. Documents on record perused.

5. The question as to whether deposit of 20% of the awarded

compensation amount, is mandatory while suspending the sentence, was

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra)

wherein it was held as under:-

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

should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally,

Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of

deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where

the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of

20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to

deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception

can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.

HAMANT

2026.02.06 19:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-M-4224-2026 3

7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under

Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been

convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is

always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an

exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of

sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of

the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the

Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an

exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion

must be recorded.

8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court

nor be