IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.123 CRM-M-8240-2026 Decided on : 13.02.2026 Ajit Singh Kochhar ...... Petitioner Versus M/s Aulakh Trading Co. and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Tarna in CRA-302 of 2025 titled as “Ajit Singh Kochhar versus M/s Aulak Trading” filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti whereby, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation without considering whether the case of the petitioner falls within exception or not.

2. Vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 18.11.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (i.e. the cheque amount) to the complainant within a period of two months, along with default mechanism. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 15.12.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20%

of the compensation amount before the date fixed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows:- “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 petitioner 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 4 conclusion must be recorded.”

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the Appellate Court was required to consider whether the case of the petitioner is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% fine/compensation amount. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is hereby set aside to the exte