130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAMESH SINGH RAJ SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present petition under Section setting aside of order dated learned Additional Sessions (wrongly mentioned as ‘346’ in the head Singh’ filed against the judgment dated Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate the sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within 60 days. 2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be refe by the complainant liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.034427 dated 14.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000 Guruharshai in his favour, with the assurance that the cheque will be encashed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAMESH SINGH V/S SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition under Section order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka in an appeal (wrongly mentioned as ‘346’ in the head-note) titled as filed against the judgment dated 24.10.2024 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka in NACT sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within 60 The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) has been initiated complainant with the submissions that in discharge of legal debt and liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.034427 dated 14.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branc Guruharshai in his favour, with the assurance that the cheque will be encashed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20137-2025 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 ...PETITIONER SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR The present petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of an appeal CRA No.342 of 2024 titled as ‘Ramesh Singh vs. Raj 24.10.2024 passed by learned in NACT-586 of 2020, whereby, sentence of the petitioner was suspended conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within 60 The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable rred as N.I. Act) has been initiated in discharge of legal debt and liability, the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.034427 dated 14.10.2020 for drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Guruharshai in his favour, with the assurance that the cheque will be encashed MANISHA 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20137 upon its presentation. dishonoured with the remarks “ 19.10.2020. Thereafter, th 22.10.2020 to the amount. Hence, this complaint. 3. Vide dated 24.10.2024 Fazilka, the petitioner was convicted and imprisonment for a period of under Section 138 pay compensation to the tune of Rs. in default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioner was further directed to undergo petitioner preferred an appeal agai order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned Appellate Court vide order dated of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation 60 days of passing of the order. 4. 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 comp and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Development Corporation 20137-2025 2 upon its presentation. However, upon presentation, the said cheque dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient . Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated to the petitioner/accused, but he failed to pay the aforementioned Hence, this complaint. ide judgment of conviction and 24.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 01 year for commission of offence punishable 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was further directed to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- in default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned Appellate Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation 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 comp and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking However, upon presentation, the said cheque was Funds Insufficient” vide return memo dated complainant got issued legal notice dated he failed to pay the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence ditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, sentenced to undergo simple for commission of offence punishable of Negotiable Instruments Act and was further directed to under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioner was further imprisonment for two months. Thereafter, the nst the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. The 18.11.2024, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 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 Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial , decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking MANISHA 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20137 through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows: 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. The impugned order dated 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension o sentence upon the petitioner Court is directed to re petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial 20137-2025 3 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 w 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. 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 warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if th 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 and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. The impugned order dated 18.11.2024, whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension o the petitioner is hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner 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 awarded by learned trial 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 ight of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 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 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.” Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing pra), the lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial MANISHA 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20137 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 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 20137-2025 4 The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordanc 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 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 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment