CRM-M-30164-2025 -1- 138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30164-2025 Date of decision :28.05.2025 Satyavir Singh .....Petitioner Versus Birender Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jasvinder Singh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing/setting aside of order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul in case No.CRA/102/2025 titled as ‘Satyavir Vs. Birender’, wherein Ld. ASJ, Narnaul dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking waiver of deposit of 20% of total amount of compensation and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of total compensation awarded by the ld. trial Court. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year and was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further submitted that against the order dated 13.02.2025, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Narnaul POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.28 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30164-2025 -2- and learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) suspended the sentence of petitioner and he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with aid of Section 148 of the NI Act. However, due to financial constraints, the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 13.03.2025. Thus, the learned Appellate Court has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case and as such the Appellate Court has failed to follow the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2024(1) SCC (Cri) 90. He prays that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to present his case before the Appellate Court and then pass fresh order after considering his contentions as well as the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further stated that in the Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra), it has been held that when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI 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 conclusion must be recorded, which is missing in the present case. 3. Heard. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was given 40 days time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court and the order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.28 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30164-2025 -3- explain his position and as such, the same is against the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, and the judicial precedent settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra), without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of. Petitioner is relegated to approach the learned Appellate Court concerned and file an appropriate application before it, which would be decided, by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) in this regard within one month from the date of filing of the application. The direction given in the order dated 13.03.2025 by learned Appellate Court to the extent of depositing 20% of compensation, is set aside and the petitioner shall continue to be on bail as per order dated 13.03.2025 of learned Appellate Court till the above-said application is disposed of by it. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 28.05.2025 JUDGE ps-I Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.28 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document