1 2026:CGHC:7238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 427 of 2026 1 - Sadhelal Patel S/o Late Parkhitram Patel Aged About 52 Years Village- Baima- Nagoi, District- Bilaspur, At Present, Dream City, Quarter No. D/97, Khamtarai Road, Bilaspur And Police Station - Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rajendra Prasad Varma S/o Durga Prasad Varma R/o Vaishnavi Vihar, Asha Nagar Uslapur, Police Station- Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Chitranjay Singh Patel, Adv. For State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10/02/2026 1 Heard. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed in Criminal HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.10 18:05:12 +0530 2 Appeal No. 11/2026 by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for exemption to deposit 20% of the compensation passed in the bail order dated 28.11.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce bail bond of like some amount of rs. 25,000/- and also deposit 20% (2,00,000/-) of the fine/compensation amount. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced in the case passed the judgment dated 24.10.2025 and convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 3 months and with compensation/fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2025 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Learned appellate Court along with an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of order dated 24.10.2025 which got allowed on 28.11.2025 with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount within stipulated period prescribe under Section 143-A(3) of the Act while suspending the execution of the order dated 24.10.2025. 5 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 28.11.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of 3 depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 24.10.2025. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for exemption to deposit the same amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but the same has been rejected on 29.12.2025. 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. 6 Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently 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 …...] 7 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 (@ 1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018. 2 (2023) 10 SCC 446 4 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.” 8 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 3 , also followed the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. 9 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. 10 In those circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 of the learned Appellate court is set aside and restored the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024 5 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 24.10.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 440/2023 stands suspended. 11 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu