1 2026:CGHC:4641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 268 of 2026 1 - Dinkar Singh Chetam (Dinu Guruji) S/o Tekram Chetam, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Hariyali Dhaba, Kjhuntaghath, Manjholipara, Village Panchayat Navagaon, Tahsil And Police Station- Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rajram Prajapati S/o Maiku Prajapati, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nayapara, Sirgitti, Tahsil - Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 28/01/2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2026, whereby the appellate Court has imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the sentence, on the application preferred under Section 430 of BNSS. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused, exploiting SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.01.28 18:18:15 +0530 2 their long-standing personal and familial acquaintance, secured a loan of 5,20,000/- for family needs. At the request and ₹ assurance of the petitioner/accused, the respondent/complainant gave 5,20,000/- to him, and the ₹ petitioner/accused issued Cheque No. 130457 dated 01.05.2017. The accused failed to repay the loan, and the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. The JMFC, Bilaspur, vide order dated 04.12.2025, convicted the petitioner under section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months and compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5/2026 under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the learned Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), along with an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellate court allowed the appeal, suspending the sentence and granting bail to the petitioner subject to deposits 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act an the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any reason for the same. The learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 04.12.2025. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed. 5. Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently 3 incorporated to the N.I. Act vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 20 of 2018), the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- 1["148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that………" (2)….. (3)….. Provided that …...] 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.2, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4927 of 2023) on 04.09.2023 held as under: “7. Therefore, 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 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 conclusion must be recorded.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 3 , also 1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018. 2 (2023) 10 SCC 446 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024 4 followed the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. 8. In the case in hand, impugned order of the learned Appellate court does not disclose anything that the learned Appellate court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e. whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount. 9. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Appellate court is set aside and restored the application filed by the petitioner under Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate court. The learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then, the execution of order dated 04.12.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 552/2017 stands suspended. 10. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P. Sd