CRM-M-53533-2025 1 146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53533-2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 DHARAMBIR ...Petitioner VERSUS SARJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Court of learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul in criminal appeal bearing CRA No.18 of 2025 titled ‘Dharambir versus Sarjeet Singh and another’ filed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul in case bearing Criminal Complaint No. N.I.ACT/139/2018, whereby, sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 25% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days. 2. Vide judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.24 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53533-2025 2 was further directed to pay compensation, i.e. Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant in a complaint instituted by complainant/respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.01.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing of 25% 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 to deposit 25% of the compensation amount and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law 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 vide judgment dated 04.09.2023 in which it has been 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 petitioner who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of a N.I. Act, it is always open for Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.24 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53533-2025 3 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.” 4. In view of the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls within the exceptions or not but no such reasons have been recorded while imposing the condition to deposit 25% of the amount. The impugned order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) is thus not sustainable and is hereby set aside to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing 25% of compensation amount. The learned Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the case afresh after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement to deposit 25% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court. 5. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra). 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 22.09.2025 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No Priyanka Thakur 2025.09.24 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document