1 2025:CGHC:23482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1646 of 2025 1 - Devprasad Patel S/o Shri Kurusho Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhurupali, Tehsil Pithoura, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kesari Verma S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Radha Vihar Colony, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12.06.2025 1 Heard. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2025 by the Learned Third Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the sentence of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.13 10:38:48 +0530 2 the petitioner on an application preferred under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned trial court under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 alleging that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 6,24,000/- from the complainant on 23.06.2020 for domestic expenses and had given a written agreement (ikrarnaama) promising to repay the amount by 17.09.2020. Along with the agreement, the accused had given cheque no. 616123 dated 19.01.2022 of Rs. 6,24,000/- of Cooperative Central Bank, Raipur to the respondent for payment towards the repayment of loan amount taken, which when presented by the respondent in his account was dishonored by the bank with a note of funds insufficient and even after the complainant had sent a legal notice the said amount was not paid to the complainant within the prescribed period. On 29.03.2025 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. after hearing both the parties, allowed the Criminal Complaint No. 100/2022 and convicted the appellant for one year of Simple Imprisonment as well as compensation amount to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2025 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 before the Learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) along with an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence which got allowed with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the sentence of the petitioner. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate court has committed grave error while 3 passing the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence of the petitioner. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed. 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4927 of 2023) on 04.09.2023 held as under: “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. 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 the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.” 6 In the case on hand, impugned order of the learned Appellate court does not disclose anything that the learned Appellate court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e. whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine / compensation amount. 7 In those circumstances, the impugned order of the leaned Appellate court is set aside and restored the 4 application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate court. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate court on 7th July, 2025. On such appearance, the learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order. Till then, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court stands suspended. If the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Appellate Court as directed above, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse of the Court. 8 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu