1 / 4 2025:CGHC:2720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1219 of 2024 1 - Biraja Jena (Wrongly Mentioned As Zena Impugned Order) W/o Rameshwar Jena, (Wrongly Mentioned As Zena Impugned Order) Aged About 59 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 46 Years In Impugned Order), R/o BKD/2, Sector-9, Bhilai District- Durg, Presently R/o- 17304, Prestige Lakeside Habitat, Varthur, Gunjur, Bangalore Karnataka, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Yashraj Mehra S/o Late S. C. Mehra Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 28 (Wrongly Mentioned As 31 In Impugned Order) Zypsy Ganpati Vihar Borasi Durg, District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shamsuddin Mirza, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 06/03/2024 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.74/2024, wherein the application preferred by the respondent herein for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been allowed with a condition of payment of Rs.50,000/- without considering the fact that the total fine/compensation amount imposed upon the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.28 18:05:41 +0530 2 / 4 respondent/accused is Rs.30,00,000/- and the direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as condition for grant of bail is against the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which provides for deposit of minimum 20 percent of the fine amount. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner and the respondent/accused were known to each other. The respondent runs a business of construction and also a land broker. The respondent used to borrow money from the petitioner. The petitioner in the month of February, 2014 has given an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent and the respondent promised him to return the same within 3-4 months. When the petitioner demanded the said amount, the respondent issued cheque bearing No.847714 dated 19/07/2016 of United Bank of India, Branch -B Market, Street No.25, Plot No.5, Sector 6, Bhilai for the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and when the petitioner presented the said cheque, the cheque got dishonoured on 24/08/2016 because of inssuficient funds. Thereafter, a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed. 3. The complaint case was registered as Complaint Case No.1511/2017 before the JMFC, Durg wherein by the judgment dated 21/02/2024 the respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced for simple imprisonment of 06 months and was directed to pay a fine amount of Rs.30,00,000/- within 60 days from the date of judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and along with the memo of appeal the 3 / 4 respondent filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of appeal. The learned Appellate Court allowed the said application on subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- by the respondent. 4. The said petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the quantum of fine amount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the condition imposed by the appellate court while granting bail of depositing Rs.50,000/- is against the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which clearly mandates that the appellant is being directed to deposit an amount of fine or compensation, the same shall be minimum 20 percent of the total fine or compensation amount. He would next contend that only in exceptional circumstances and for the reasons to be recorded in writing the condition of deposit of minimum 20 percent can be dispensed with. She would lastly contend that therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court needs interference by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the appellate Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. No doubt the total fine/compensation amount imposed upon the respondent /accused is Rs.30,00,000/- and the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is 1.6% of the total amount. 9. Be that as it may, since the order has already been passed by the appellate Court and Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited by the 4 / 4 respondent and the respondent has furnished bail bond before the Magistrate Court and he is on bail. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has right to file an application before the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. In the event of filing such application under Section 148 of NI Act, the learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the application after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, on its own merits, without prejudice to the order of this Court. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu