1 2025:CGHC:24279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1654 of 2025 • Tavindar Singh Sahani S/o Shri Harcharan Singh Sahani Aged About 42 Years, Apolo Highway Services Petrol Pump, Chhokaranala Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. R/o House No.32/1259, Gurunanak Nagar, Shyamnagar, Police Station Telibandha, Post Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus • Shri Satpal Singh Saluja S/o Shri Saurjeet Singh Saluja Aged About 41 Years. R/o Kashiram Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Post Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Sindwani, Advocate. For Respondent( : Not Noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16/06/ 202 5 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 394/2024 by the Learned 10th Additional Session Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) whereby an application under Section 148 of N.I. Act filed by the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.17 17:13:46 +0530 2 respondent (herein) has been allowed and the petitioner (herein) has been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days for the complainant. 2. Facts of the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act are that there was a friendly acquaintance between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent, and the Petitioner borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and also issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for clearance through his bank, which was dishonoured by the Bank. Finally, a complaint case was filed by the complainant against the petitioner before the learned trial court. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14.10.2024 allowed the complaint case, convicted the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment, awarded S.I. for 6 months. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed the appeal bearing Appeal No. 394/2024 before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant also filed an application under Section 148 of N.I. Act and prayed for direction to pay 20% of the awarded amount. The learned appellate Court, after hearing both parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, passed the order dated 25.04.2025, whereby it 3 allowed the application filed under Section 148 of N.I. Act and directed the petitioner to deposite 20% of the award amount within 60 days. Hence the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 is illegal, against the provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act. He further submits that the appellate Court failed to consider the fact that Section 148 of N.I. Act is enforceable on 01.09.2018, whereas the cheque was given on 18.04.2018 (before five months from the date of enforcement) and the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was presented before the bank on 18.04.2018 and the complaint case was filed on 14.05.2018, therefore, the order passed by the learned appellant Court is illegal. Hence, the petition is liable to be allowed, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the conviction order is of 14.10.2024, and the impugned order is of 25.04.2025 and the provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act came into force from 01.09.2018; therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act is not attracted in the present case is not acceptable. 4 As such, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu