IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

181 CRM-M-17388-2026 Date of Decision : 02.04.2026 RAGHVIR SINGH ALIAS RAGHBIR SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS GURINDER SINGH ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Raghav Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, while suspending the sentence of the appellant awarded on 26.05.2025 (by learned trial Court in Complaint bearing NACT No.261 dated 09.08.2021 titled ‘Gurinder Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh’, petitioner (appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana) was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation.

2. Vide judgment of conviction/sentence dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and was further directed to pay cheque amount i.e. Rs.8,33,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 02.07.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner, however, on 20.08.2025, learned Court had directed the petitioner 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. In purely mechanical manner, sentence so awarded by the learned trial Court was suspended subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Learned counsel submits that petitioner, who belongs to economically weaker class is facing acute financial crunch. He has a good case on merits and that if the condition so imposed while suspending the sentence is not waived off, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Moreover, submissions advanced by learned counsel highlighting that case of petitioner falls under exceptional category were also not taken note of by learned First Appellate Court. The said condition (depositing 20% of the compensation amount) 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.

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 before the High