2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Sumit Kumar Bindal – Appellant
Versus
Chottu Ram Sumer Singh – Respondent
CRR-1356-2023 (O&M) | CRR-1334-2023 (O&M) | CRR-1431-2023 (O&M)

An Appellate Court may legally condition the suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. upon the deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as these compensatory provisions are intended to be effectively enforced during appellate proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 143A and 148 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389 - Cheque bounce case - Suspension of sentence - Condition of pre-deposit - Whether Appellate Court can condition suspension of sentence upon deposit of 20% of compensation awarded. Appellate Court has power to impose condition of pre-deposit of compensation or fine, as determined under Section 148, for suspending sentence under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Such condition is not alien to jurisdiction relating to grant of bail but forms part of broader judicial exercise balancing liberty of convict with statutory rights of complainant - Requirement of payment under Section 148 is intended to be ordinarily enforced as a rule subject to rare/exceptional circumstances. (Paras 38, 43, 66, 103, 106)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Power of Appellate Court under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act is independent of Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Order for deposit can be integrated into order for suspension of sentence - Non-compliance with statutory deposit may lead to cancellation of bail if such condition was an integral part of suspension order. (Paras 42, 51, 67, 85)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought suspension of sentence pending appeal against conviction in a cheque bounce case. The lower Appellate Court granted suspension of sentence, but made it conditional upon deposit of 20% of the compensation amount prescribed under Section 148 of the Act, stipulating that failure to comply would result in cancellation of bail. Petitioners contested this order as illegal, arguing Section 148 cannot dictate the terms of suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and that the term 'drawer' in Section 148 should not include authorized signatories of companies.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Court can impose the statutory pre-deposit of 20% as a condition for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and whether an authorized signatory of a company can be treated as a 'drawer' for the purpose of Section 148.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Appellate Court possesses the authority to include the statutory pre-deposit requirement as a condition in the order suspending the sentence. It held that the legislative intent of the amended provisions is to curb frivolous litigation and provide interim relief to the payee. The specific question regarding whether an authorized signatory qualifies as a 'drawer' for the purpose of Section 148 was left open for determination by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 389 Cr.P.C. permits the court to impose conditions for suspension of sentence. Integrating the statutory obligation of Section 148 as a condition for bail is a valid exercise of judicial discretion under the broader compensatory and remedial framework of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preventing the statutory mandate from becoming illusory.

Result: Petitions disposed of; Appellate Court's power to impose pre-deposit as a condition for suspension of sentence upheld; question of signatory liability left for larger Bench; Appellate Court directed to decide appeals on merits without immediate pre-deposit from signatories, subject to an undertaking.

Table of Content
1. factual procedural history of cheque bounce conviction and conditional suspension of sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. debate on whether section 148 ni act is mandatory or discretionary when suspending sentence under section 389 cr.p.c. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. arguments concerning whether authorized signatories are 'drawers' for section 148 pre-deposit requirements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. court analyzing intersection of liberty (bail) and statutory compensatory conditions. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
5. final holding: appellate court power to impose deposit is upheld; signatory status as 'drawer' remains sub-judice. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 03.04.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in three (03) different criminal appeals preferred by the petitioner(s) herein, directing the petitioner(s) to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspension of sentence against conviction in cheque bounce cases, the present revision petitions have been filed.

2. The details of the cases are given as under: -

FACTS

3. For the facility of reference, the brief facts are however extracted from CRR No.1356-2023 titled as ‘SUMIT KUMAR BINDAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S CHOTTU RAM SUMER SINGH’.

4. The petitioner(s) herein stood convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide judgment of conviction dated 01.03.2023 passed in Criminal Complaint bearing No. CIS/191/NACT/2016, instituted on 11.04.2016. Vide the order of sentence passed on 04.03.2023, the petitioner(s) were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and 06 months. In addition thereto, the petitioner(s) were also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the complainant.

5. The case set up by the respondent-complainant is that the petitioners are responsible and authorized persons of Shri Shyami Agrico Exports. The complainant being involved in sale/purchase of agricultural produce, he purchases different quantities of stocks from different sellers, on the asking of and on direction of the petitioners. Total paddy dispatched for the financial year 2014-15 was Rs.4.16 Crores approx. Till February, 2015, only a sum of Rs.1.77 crores was released followed by an amount of Rs.67 Lakhs. Towards discharge of his liability, the accused Shri Shyami Agrico Exports issued Cheque bearing No.185658 dated 30.10.2015, for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. The cheque was however dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, vide memo dated 29.01.2016.

6. A statutory legal notice was accordingly sent. Since payment was not made, hence, the complaint was filed for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The parties were summoned by the Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 26.04.2016.

7. On securing the presence of the accused-petitioners, a notice of accusations was served vide order dated 03.11.2016 to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. The parties led their respective evidence and on consideration thereof, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, convicted the petitioners vide judgment dated 01.03.2023 and later sentenced them.

9. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Hisar. The said appeal was admitted on 03.04.2023 and the sentence of the petitioners was suspended subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, within a period of 02 months. It was further ordered that if the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document