1 2025:CGHC:3617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 227 of 2025 1 - Jharokha Ram S/o Shri Babulal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Arroud Post Giroud, P.S. And Tahsil- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Late Umed Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Megha (Senhabhatha) Post Megha P.S. And Tahsil-Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Director Of Bhagwati Traders Megha) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2024, wherein the application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 and Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 has been allowed by the learned appellate 2 court with the condition that 20% of the compensation amount is to be deposited within 60 days. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other and under the same relationship, the complainant had given rods and cement worth Rs. 1,33,690/- (One lakh thirty three thousand six hundred and ninety rupees) to the accused on credit. The accused had personally contacted the complainant and purchased rods, cement and other materials from his establishment. Thus, the accused had to pay Rs. 1,33,690/- to the complainant for the said transaction. The loan amount was outstanding. After a long time, in March, 2021 when the complainant needed his money, he demanded the money for the goods given to the accused on credit. For the purpose of returning the money, the accused gave the complainant a cheque bearing no. 465699 dated 25.03.2021 of UCO Bank Branch Kurud, District- Dhamtari, in the name of Bhagwati Traders Megha for the payment of the said amount. The complainant deposited the above cheque provided by the accused in his Dena Bank, now Bank of Baroda, Branch-Megha, District- Dhamtari informed the complainant through its return memo dated 13.07.2021 that the drawer has given a stop payment (PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER) in the account of the cheque prayer. Due to which payment is not possible. Thus, when the complainant personally contacted the accused after the cheque bounced, the accused did not respond to the information of the 3 complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that imposition of condition by learned Appellate Court for payment of 20% of fine amount against the petitioner for suspension of sentence imposed against him, is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881. He would further submit that imposition of such condition is not mandatory in nature. Thus, on this count the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order to the extent of directing 20% of the compensation amount. To substantiate this submission the petitioner has referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others (2023) 10 SCC 446 wherein it has been held in para 9 and 10 as under:- “9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Court and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that deposition of 20% compensation while preferring appeal 4 under Section 148 is not an absolute rule and the Appellate Court can consider whether the case is an exception and record the reason for its exception in conclusion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in same case has considered the judgment of Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S. S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the word used is “may”, it is generally to be construed as a “rule” or “shall” and not to direct to deposit by the Appellate Court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned and the Appellate Court directed for depositing 20% of compensation/fine amount as imposed by learned Trial Court. Thus, purposive interpretation of Section 148 of N.I. Act is that normally the Appellate Court will be just in imposing the condition of depositing as provided under Section 148 of N.I. Act. 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. 6. Considering the above stated legal position, I am of the view that if the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of compensation amount, the object of provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act, 1881 will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2024 so far as it relates to condition of imposing 20% is set-aside and it is directed that within one month 5 from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court, the petitioner will deposit 15% of the compensation amount. 7. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed in part. 8. Certified Copy today. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima