1 2025:CGHC:31489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2123 of 2025 1 - Paramjeet Singh Gandhi S/o Shri Gurudayal Singh Gandhi, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-13, Near Waqf Board Office, Devendra Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Vyas Pathak S/o Shri Krati Kumar Pathak, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Behind Subhash Stadium, Ahamad Ji Colony, Civil Line, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Not Noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09.07.2025 1 Heard. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.10 10:25:37 +0530 2 impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 168/2025 by the Learned Third Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence and releasing the petitioner on bail, on an application preferred under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023. 3 The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had entered into a loan agreement on 09.01.2015, wherein the petitioner mortgaged his house against the loan amount. The petitioner, while settling his loan amount, issued two cheques: Cheque No. 259683 dated 20.08.2015, of Punjab National Bank for Rs. 9,00,000/-, and Cheque No. 259682 dated 20.08.2015, of Punjab National Bank for Rs. 10,00,000/-. These cheques were presented before the bank on 15.09.2015 and 22.09.2015, respectively, and were dishonored due to insufficient funds. On 06.03.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, after hearing both parties, allowed Criminal Complaint No. 2516/2015 and convicted the appellant for two years of simple imprisonment as well as a compensation amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2025, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal No. 168/2025 under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG), along with an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appeal was allowed with the condition that the petitioner would deposit 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence and releasing the petitioner on bail. 3 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 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 application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate 4 court. 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. 8 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.