133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NAWAL KISHORE KHURANA AND ANOTHER SUNNY THUKRAL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the second setting aside of order dated learned Additional Sessions titled as ‘Nawal Kishor Khurana and another vs. Sunny Thukral the judgment dated Amritsar in NACT suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within 60 days 28.03.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. 2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) has been initiated by the complainant with the submissions that and were on visiting terms with him. Due to which, they availed a friendly loan of Rs.2,40,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NAWAL KISHORE KHURANA AND ANOTHER V/S SUNNY THUKRAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Banga, Advocate for the petitioners. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the second petition filed order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Nawal Kishor Khurana and another vs. Sunny Thukral dated 31.01.2025 passed by learned in NACT-6785 of 2018, whereby, the suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within 60 days. The first petition was withdrawn on 28.03.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) has been initiated by the complainant with the submissions that the petitioners are his relatives and were on visiting terms with him. Due to which, they availed a friendly loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from him. In order to discharge their legal liability, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18835-2025 Date of decision: 07.04.2025 NAWAL KISHORE KHURANA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate under Section 528 BNSS for 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of an appeal CRA No.52 of 2025 Nawal Kishor Khurana and another vs. Sunny Thukral’ filed against passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque The first petition was withdrawn on 28.03.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) has been initiated the petitioners are his relatives and were on visiting terms with him. Due to which, they availed a friendly . In order to discharge their legal liability, they MANISHA 2025.04.07 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18835 issued a cheque bearing No.296566 dated on State Bank of India, Branch Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for its encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused this complaint. 3. Vide Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, A sentenced to undergo commission of offence punishable under Section Instruments Act and tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month each fine, if any already paid compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 19.02.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner 20% of the compensation amount 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner learned lower Appe 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 18835-2025 2 issued a cheque bearing No.296566 dated 14.11.2018 for Rs.2,40,000/ on State Bank of India, Branch Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for its encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. complainant got issued legal notice dated accused, but they failed to pay the aforementioned amount. ide judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, the petitioner sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of commission of offence punishable under Section Instruments Act and were further directed to pay tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant under Section , in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month each fine, if any already paid to the complainant, be set off from the amount of Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned Appellate Cou suspended the sentence of the petitioner 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 14.11.2018 for Rs.2,40,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for its encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. complainant got issued legal notice dated 20.11.2018 to the failed to pay the aforementioned amount. Hence, 31.01.2025 passed by learned the petitioners were convicted and imprisonment for a period of 01 year each for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable further directed to pay compensation jointly to the to the complainant under Section , in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month each and it was also directed that to the complainant, be set off from the amount of preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional . The learned Appellate Court vide order dated suspended the sentence of the petitioners subject to depositing within 60 days of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the llate 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 MANISHA 2025.04.07 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18835 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Development Corporation Ltd. and others through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows: 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner perusing the judgment passed in Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re 18835-2025 3 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Ap (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it 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 Ap 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 an 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 warr 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.” Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. The impugned order dated condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence upon the petitioner learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-examine Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial , decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows:- 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 specifically recorded. Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an 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 nclusion must be recorded.” Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the The impugned order dated 19.02.2025, whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for the petitioners is hereby set aside. The examine the case after granting MANISHA 2025.04.07 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-18835 an opportunity to the petitioner exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court. 6. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court with a direc the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhandari's case (supra) 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 07, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 18835-2025 4 an opportunity to the petitioners to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation rned trial Court. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court 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 Bhandari's case (supra). The petition is disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate tion to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo The petition is disposed of accordingly. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.07 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment