CRR-245-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 119 Ramesh Chand Ram Niwas CORAM: PRESENT: SANJAY VASHISTH 1. against the order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, pass 2. (complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’) on the gro being in good relations with the complainant, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ assured the respondent that he would return the said amount within a period of one month and 634997, dated 14.08.2019, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ respondent by the respondent bank with the report of dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 16.08.2019. After that when the respondent the petitioner for repayment, the petitioner did not pay any heed to his 2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ramesh Chand Versus Ram Niwas CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner(s). **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, passed in CRA-287-2024, filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent (complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’) on the gro being in good relations with the complainant, petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for depositing the education fee of his son. Petitioner had assured the respondent that he would return the said amount within a period of one month and for the said purpose, petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 634997, dated 14.08.2019, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ respondent – complainant. However, when the said cheque was presented by the respondent – complainant before the Bank, it wa bank with the report of dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 16.08.2019. After that when the respondent the petitioner for repayment, the petitioner did not pay any heed to his IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-245-2025 Decided on : 29.01.2025 . . . Petitioner(s) Versus . . . Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions 2024, filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent – Ram Niwas (complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’) on the ground that, being in good relations with the complainant, petitioner had borrowed a sum for depositing the education fee of his son. Petitioner had assured the respondent that he would return the said amount within a period for the said purpose, petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 634997, dated 14.08.2019, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, in favour of the complainant. However, when the said cheque was presented complainant before the Bank, it was returned by the bank with the report of dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 16.08.2019. After that when the respondent – complainant approached the petitioner for repayment, the petitioner did not pay any heed to his Decided on : 29.01.2025 . . . Petitioner(s) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Ram Niwas (complainant) filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of und that, being in good relations with the complainant, petitioner had borrowed a sum for depositing the education fee of his son. Petitioner had assured the respondent that he would return the said amount within a period for the said purpose, petitioner issued cheque bearing No. , in favour of the complainant. However, when the said cheque was presented s returned by the bank with the report of dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” vide memo complainant approached the petitioner for repayment, the petitioner did not pay any heed to his LAVISHA 2025.01.31 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRR-245-2025 request. by the respondent Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (learned trial Court) vide its judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2024. The learned Tr dated 29.11.2024, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.9,00,000/ financial loss suffered by the respondent conviction 27.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, before the lower Appellate Court along with an application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. 3. Appellate Court while issuing notice in the said appeal and allowing the bail application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, granted bail to the petitioner subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation a within a period of 60 days from the date of order, as per Section 148 of the NI Act, without recording any reasons and treating it as an absolute rule, warranting deposit of said compensation amount. 4. placed reliance upon judgment of Bhandari 2023(10) SCC 446 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2313888 considering Section 148 of Apex Court held that in a given situation, the requisite deposit of 20% of the 2025 - 2 - Further submits that a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was filed by the respondent – complainant, which was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (learned trial Court) vide its judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2024. The learned Tr dated 29.11.2024, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.9,00,000/ financial loss suffered by the respondent – Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction 27.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, before the lower Appellate Court along with an application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. Learned counsel for the p Appellate Court while issuing notice in the said appeal and allowing the bail application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, granted bail to the petitioner subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation a within a period of 60 days from the date of order, as per Section 148 of the NI Act, without recording any reasons and treating it as an absolute rule, warranting deposit of said compensation amount. In support of his contention, counsel for the placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023(10) SCC 446 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2313888 considering Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a given situation, the requisite deposit of 20% of the er submits that a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was filed complainant, which was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (learned trial Court) vide its judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2024. The learned Trial Court vide order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in lieu of the – complainant. itioner filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction 27.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, before the lower Appellate Court along with an application for suspension of sentence Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the lower Appellate Court while issuing notice in the said appeal and allowing the bail application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, granted bail to the petitioner subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days from the date of order, as per Section 148 of the NI Act, without recording any reasons and treating it as an absolute rule, warranting deposit of said compensation amount. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Jamb M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023(10) SCC 446 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2313888, and submits that while the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a given situation, the requisite deposit of 20% of the er submits that a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was filed complainant, which was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra (learned trial Court) vide its judgment of ial Court vide order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment in lieu of the itioner filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction 27.11.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024, before the lower Appellate Court along with an application for suspension of sentence etitioner argues that the lower Appellate Court while issuing notice in the said appeal and allowing the bail application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, granted mount within a period of 60 days from the date of order, as per Section 148 of the NI Act, without recording any reasons and treating it as an absolute rule, petitioner has Jamboo M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., , and submits that while the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a given situation, the requisite deposit of 20% of the LAVISHA 2025.01.31 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRR-245-2025 compensation amount is not absolute and same can either be reduced or be completely exempted for the reasons to be recorded by Appell reproduced here 5. 2025 - 3 - compensation amount is not absolute and same can either be reduced or be completely exempted for the reasons to be recorded by Appell For reference, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced here-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 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. A 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 bef Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence withou condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court. 12. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re Petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored Revision Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate.” Having heard counsel for the petitioner and goi compensation amount is not absolute and same can either be reduced or be completely exempted for the reasons to be recorded by Appellate Court. For reference, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are 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 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. 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 Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not ere no reasons for the Courts to consider We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation matter to be examined by the High Court. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster ch of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the Revision he light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored Revision Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate.” Having heard counsel for the petitioner and going through the compensation amount is not absolute and same can either be reduced or be For reference, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are 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 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 appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for ct, 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 Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original ore the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not ere no reasons for the Courts to consider We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally t any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster ch of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% examine the Revision he light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored Revision Petitions, the interim order passed by ng through the LAVISHA 2025.01.31 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRR-245-2025 proposition of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhandari’s case be disposed of without issuing notice to the other side, by relegating the petitioner to appear befo petitioner is pending adjudication, with liberty to raise all such pleas there. 6. aside to the extent of deposit of 20% of the compensation am period of 60 days. learned Court below on or before 10.02.2025. Upon appearance of the petitioner and hearing him, the learned Court below shall pass fresh orders with regard 7. January 29, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 2025 - 4 - proposition of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhandari’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that this petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the other side, by relegating the petitioner to appear before the learned Court below, where the appeal of the petitioner is pending adjudication, with liberty to raise all such pleas there. Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.12.2024, is hereby to the extent of deposit of 20% of the compensation am period of 60 days. Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the learned Court below on or before 10.02.2025. Upon appearance of the petitioner and hearing him, the learned Court below shall pass fresh orders with regard to the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Petition stands disposed of accordingly January 29, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No proposition of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamb , I am of the considered view that this petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the other side, by relegating the re the learned Court below, where the appeal of the petitioner is pending adjudication, with liberty to raise all such pleas there. Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.12.2024, is hereby set to the extent of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within a Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the learned Court below on or before 10.02.2025. Upon appearance of the petitioner and hearing him, the learned Court below shall pass fresh orders to the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SANJAY VASHISTH JUDGE Jamboo , I am of the considered view that this petition can be disposed of without issuing notice to the other side, by relegating the re the learned Court below, where the appeal of the petitioner is pending adjudication, with liberty to raise all such pleas there. set- ount within a Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the learned Court below on or before 10.02.2025. Upon appearance of the petitioner and hearing him, the learned Court below shall pass fresh orders to the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. SANJAY VASHISTH) LAVISHA 2025.01.31 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh