R/SCR.A/7057/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7057 of 2025 ========================================================== PRAJAPATI YATINKUMAR SURESBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, in Criminal Misc. Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 322/2025, whereby, learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to direct the petitioner to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.7,52,000/-. 2. From the record, it appears that the ld. Sessions Judge has been pleased to allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act subject to deposit the cheque amount with Nazir Department, District Court at Himmatnagar and further directed the petitioner to deposit cost of Rs.2,000/- in the District Legal Services Authority, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar. Being aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Manan Mehta, ld. APP for the respondent State and Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is convicted in a complaint being Criminal Case No.506/2022 filed by respondent No.2 under Section R/SCR.A/7057/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year SI and further ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but as delay was caused in preferring such appeal, the petitioner has also preferred an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said application was allowed subject to deposit the entire cheque amount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is unable to deposit the entire cheque amount and due to this, his delay condonation application though conditionally allowed, amounts to refusal. Hence, he requested to quash and set aside the said condition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the present petition and contended that, conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen. He remained absconder and till date, he has not paid a single rupee. Delay of 276 days has been caused and for that no reasonable explanation has been offered. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the present petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been convicted and is presently in judicial custody. He intended to prefer an appeal against the order of conviction, but there has been a delay in filing the appeal, which is a statutory right available to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to condone the delay; however, while doing so, has imposed an onerous condition ordering the petitioner to deposit the entire cheque amount. In addition, a cost of Rs. 2,000/- has also been imposed. As per the scheme of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court may direct the deposit of up to 20% of the cheque amount at the stage of suspending the sentence. Furthermore, under Section 143A of the R/SCR.A/7057/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 Act, the Court has the power to grant interim compensation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 138. However, in the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has directed to deposit the entire cheque amount, which appears to be unduly onerous. At the stage of deciding an application for suspension of sentence, the Court indeed has wide discretion to pass appropriate orders with reasons. In the present case, the petitioner’s failure to deposit the said amount has led to the dismissal of the delay condonation application, which effectively results in the appeal being rejected at the threshold. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, present petition is allowed. Condition No.1 imposed by learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha vide order dated 30.04.2025 to deposit Rs.7,52,000/- lacs before Nazir Department, District Court at Himmatnagar is hereby deleted. 8.1 Condition No.2 qua cost of Rs.2,000/- remains unaltered. 8.2 It is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to take all available contentions before learned Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court while passing an order of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C/ Section 430 of BNSS is at liberty to impose any suitable condition/s as deem fit considering the merit of the case. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/07/2025 18:08:54