CRM-M-12775- 165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Naresh Kumar Punjab Gramin Bank CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 Judge, Fazilka, in case bearing No. CRA/ been directed to deposit 20% o 2. Vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate was convicted and sentenced to undergo years, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. to the complainant, for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferre the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 04.12.2025, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount till the next date fixed before the said Court. -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Punjab Gramin Bank and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions , in case bearing No. CRA/528 been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated passed by learned Judicial Magistrate was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous , to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 to the complainant, for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferre the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated , directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount till the next date fixed before the said Court. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12775-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions 528/2025, whereby the petitioner has f the compensation amount. Vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, the petitioner rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 5,00,000/- (equal to cheque amount) to the complainant, for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned . The learned Appellate Court vide order dated , directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount till The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions /2025, whereby the petitioner has Vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated , the petitioner two (equal to cheque amount) to the complainant, for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of d an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned . The learned Appellate Court vide order dated , directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount till TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.11 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12775- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensa illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) SCC 446 has been held as follows: 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to the operative part of the impugned order and submits that the order passed is not in spirit of the dicta la Bhandari’s case (supra) -2026 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensa illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) SCC 446. Speaking through Justice Abhay S has been held as follows:- “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons s 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of a petitioner who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider wheth 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 4 conclusion must be recorded.” Learned counsel for petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to the operative part of the impugned order and submits that the order passed is not in spirit of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhandari’s case (supra) rather is passed in a mechanical manner without recording -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation . Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of tion 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of a petitioner 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 4 conclusion must be Learned counsel for petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to the operative part of the impugned order and submits that the order passed id down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo rather is passed in a mechanical manner without recording contends that the learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and tion and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation . Oka, it “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of tion 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of a petitioner who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is er 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 4 conclusion must be Learned counsel for petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to the operative part of the impugned order and submits that the order passed Jamboo rather is passed in a mechanical manner without recording TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.11 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12775- its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or non-existence of exceptional circumstances 20% of the compensation amount. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in learned Appellate Court was requi reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or non existence of exceptional circumstances for waiving the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. 6. Conseq is hereby set aside to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re the matter after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and pass a speaking order as to whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court or not. 7. The matter is remanded back concerned with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case (supra). 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 10, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or existence of exceptional circumstances to waive the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) learned Appellate Court was required to pass a speaking order while recording its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or non existence of exceptional circumstances for waiving the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Consequently, the impugned order dated is hereby set aside to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re the matter after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and pass a speaking order as to whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court or not. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court concerned with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The petition is disposed of accordingly All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or to waive the condition of deposit of Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) and the impugned order, the red to pass a speaking order while recording its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or non existence of exceptional circumstances for waiving the condition of deposit of 20% uently, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P is hereby set aside to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the matter after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and pass a speaking order as to whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court or not. to the learned lower Appellate Court concerned with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's The petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or to waive the condition of deposit of Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the and the impugned order, the red to pass a speaking order while recording its reasons to come to the conclusion as to its satisfaction regarding existence or non- existence of exceptional circumstances for waiving the condition of deposit of 20% (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing 20% of examine the matter after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and pass a speaking order as to whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of to the learned lower Appellate Court concerned with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in Jamboo Bhandari's All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.11 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document