1 2025:CGHC:26041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1898 of 2025 • Navdhe Prasad Kurre S/o Ishulal Kurre, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Parsadeeh (Singhra) Police Station Malkharauda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus • Santosh Kumar Gabel S/o Parmeshwar Gabel, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 14 Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20.06.2025 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 21.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2025 by the Learned First Upper Sessions Judge, Sakti, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) whereby the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.20 14:15:45 +0530 2 petitioner has been granted bail subject to the condition that he shall deposit 20% of the fine amount. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before the learned J.M.F.C. Sakti. The learned J.M.F.C. Sakti has registered Criminal Case No. 27/2023 and convicted the petitioner for 03 months S.I. and fine of Rs.2,40,664 on 24.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2025, the petitioner has filed criminal appeal under Section 415 before learned First Upper Sessions Judge Sakti, District-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) along with application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, which got allowed with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the fine amount within 60 days while suspending the execution of the order dated 24.02.2025. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act an the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any reason for the same. The learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount while suspending the execution of order dated 24.02.2025. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed. 5 Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently incorporated to the N.I. Act vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 20 3 of 2018), the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- 1["148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that………" (2)….. (3)….. Provided that …...] 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.2, 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 1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018. 2 (2023) 10 SCC 446 4 an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.” 7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 3 , also followed the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. 8 In the case in 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. 9 In those circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Appellate court is set aside and restored the application filed by the petitioner under Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate court. The learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then, the execution of order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 27/2023 stands suspended. 10 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. CC today as per rules Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P. 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024