CRM-M No.18201 of 2025 -1- 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.18201 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. GREWALJ. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the learned appellate Court had directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court, within a period of 60 days under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court, while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Sonia Puri 2025.04.04 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18201 of 2025 -2- 3. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2023, passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, had also directed him to pay compensation amounting to Rs.4,77,074/- to the respondent. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court. 4. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided on 24.01.2024. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of depositing of 20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed the said condition without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to the effect that the appellate Court was firstly required to consider as to whether the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition Sonia Puri 2025.04.04 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18201 of 2025 -3- of deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. 5. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after re-examining the case by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra). 6. The petition stands allowed. 7. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate Court on 25.04.2025. 03.04.2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No Sonia Puri 2025.04.04 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document