1 2025:CGHC:56285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3503 of 2025 Tularam Patel S/o Late Jageshwar Patel Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Bhauradadar, Post Lumber, Tehsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Sunil Shukla S/o Shri R. K. Shukla R/o A-38 Chugani Pride, Changorabhata, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Court of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 484/25 and the matters incidental thereto. 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner/accused. The respondent/complainant in his complaint case stated that the complainant had entered into an agreement for purchase of land bearing khasra no. 379/12 admeasuring about 5000 sq. ft. situated at MadhavraoSapre Ward, Raipura. Thereafter the petitioner/appellant contacted the complainant and showed interest to purchase the above- mentioned property. Thereafter the son and daughter-in-law of appellant entered into an agreement for payment of Rs. 17,70,000/- for the above-mentioned land with the complainant. After execution of the sale deed the petitioner denied to pay that alleged amount to the complainant. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for mutation before the tehsil office for the mentioned property and case was registered for the mutation. The complainant filed an objection before the tehsil office for the mutation. Then the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 007125 of Bank of Baroda, dated 12.07.2018, amounting Rs.20,70,000/- for alleged payment along with interest and when the respondent/complainant credited that cheque to his Oriental Bank of Commerce bank account then the cheque got dishonored with a tip of "funds insufficient" on 19.07.2018. Further stated that thereafter the respondent/complainant issued notice on 24.07.2018 and the petitioner denied to take notice on. 27.07.2018 at their New Raipur address, then the 3 respondent/complainant filed complaint case against the petitioner/appellant. The summons was issued and the petitioner/appellant marked his presence before the trial court. Thereafter the petitioner/appellant was provided with the copy of documents which was filed by the respondent/complainant. Further the complainant induced his evidence before the trial court and after evidence the trail court had passed the judgment dated 29.09.2025 and find the petitioner/appellant guilty. The copy of the complainant's deposition before the court and the judgment dated 29.09.2025 are filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2 and ANNEXURE P-3 respectively. The petitioner/appellant along with the appeal also filed an application under Section 450 of BNSS for suspension of the sentence and release on bail. The learned appellate court allowed the application filed by the appellant and further passed an order to deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount awarded by the trial court as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on 17.10.2025 (Annexure P/1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order with respect to deposition of 20% of the compensation/fine amount is illegal as the deposition of 20% is not mandatory, yet the learned appellate court has directed to deposit 20% of the awarded compensation amount. Further it is submitted that the learned appellate court is not empowered to impose condition to deposit 20% of the awarded compensation amount as the condition precedent for granting bail to the petitioner. He further 4 submits that the order passed by the Courts below suffers from huge irregularity and against the law. The Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, the appellate Court “may order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the learned trial Court.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of record, this Court has found that the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2025 pronounced by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur in Criminal Case No. 4831/2018. As per the judgment dated 29.09.2025, the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has been sentenced to two years imprisonment with a compensation of Rs. 20,70,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of 3 months. 6. The provisions of Section 143(a) and Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directive and not mandatory. Therefore, it is the discretion of the Court to impose the fine. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the short sentence awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this criminal revision. 5 8. Therefore, the accused shall deposit 15% of the compensation amount (15% of 20,70,000 = Rs. 3,10,500/-) before the Trial Court on that condition that the remaining sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of Criminal Case No. 4831/2018 and he shall be released on bail on executing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 an application for grant of ad-interim relief stands partly-allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima