CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624 127 127 127 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rajesh Behniwal alias Rajesh Beniwal State of Punjab and another Date of Date of Date of Date of DDDDecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking quashing/ modification of the impugned P-2) passed by the appeal bearing CRA Brar, in Criminal Complaint No.NACT/1219/2023 dated 30.07.2023 titled as Davinder Singh Brar v/s Rajesh Beniwal, whereby, ordered to deposit 10% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court 19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 Rajesh Behniwal alias Rajesh Beniwal versus State of Punjab and another ecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: April 10 April 10 April 10 April 10, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 10, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Abhishek Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking quashing/ modification of the impugned order dated ) passed by the learned Additional District & bearing CRA-127-2026 titled as Rajesh Beniwal v/s Davinder Singh Criminal Complaint No.NACT/1219/2023 dated 30.07.2023 titled Davinder Singh Brar v/s Rajesh Beniwal, whereby, ordered to deposit 10% of the compensation amount as awarded by the earned trial Court. The relevant portion of the impugned ““““Criminal Appeal received by entrustment. It be registered. Heard. There are arguable points involved in the appeal, therefore the same is admitted for hearing on merits. Along suspension of sentence and bail has also been appeal is to take time. The appellant was already on bail before the Ld. Trial Court during the course of trial. The Trial Court has also suspended their sentence to facilitate them to file appeal after pronouncing judgment of their conviction and order of sentence under challenge. In view of these circumstance, the sentence of applicant/appellants who are present in 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …..Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Abhishek Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking order dated 24.02.2026 (Annexure District & Sessions Judge, Fazilka, in led as Rajesh Beniwal v/s Davinder Singh Criminal Complaint No.NACT/1219/2023 dated 30.07.2023 titled Davinder Singh Brar v/s Rajesh Beniwal, whereby, the petitioner has been ordered to deposit 10% of the compensation amount as awarded by the The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus: Criminal Appeal received by entrustment. It be registered. Heard. There are arguable points involved in the appeal, therefore the same is admitted for hearing on merits. Along-with the appeal an application for suspension of sentence and bail has also been filed. The disposal of the appeal is to take time. The appellant was already on bail before the Ld. Trial Court during the course of trial. The Trial Court has also suspended their sentence to facilitate them to file appeal after pronouncing judgment heir conviction and order of sentence under challenge. In view of these circumstance, the sentence of applicant/appellants who are present in ….Petitioner …..Respondents under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking (Annexure in led as Rajesh Beniwal v/s Davinder Singh Criminal Complaint No.NACT/1219/2023 dated 30.07.2023 titled the petitioner has been ordered to deposit 10% of the compensation amount as awarded by the Criminal Appeal received by entrustment. It be registered. Heard. There are arguable points involved in the appeal, therefore the same is with the appeal an application for filed. The disposal of the appeal is to take time. The appellant was already on bail before the Ld. Trial Court during the course of trial. The Trial Court has also suspended their sentence to facilitate them to file appeal after pronouncing judgment heir conviction and order of sentence under challenge. In view of these circumstance, the sentence of applicant/appellants who are present in MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 Court is ordered to be suspended and they are further ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds in sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within 1 month. Heard on the point of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount as per Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant has submitted that he is the sole earning member of his family and does not have sufficient means to make the payment of 20% of the compensation which has been awarded by the Ld. Trial Court. After perusing the grounds of appeal and hearing the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and in view of the nature of the nature of transaction between the parties, applicant/accused is directed to deposit 10% of the compensation amount awarded vide impugned judgment within period of 60 days from today. Report of Trial Court regarding deposit of the same be also called after expiry of 60 days or upon deposit of 10% of the compensation amount. Notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent for 28.07.2026. copy of order be forwarded to Ld. Trial Court to send bonds furnished by accused in compliance of today’s order to this Court and further furnish report regarding deposit of the compensation amount as directed above. Record of the Trial Court be also summoned for the next date of hearing”””” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a poor person and has failed to arrange the aforesaid compensation amount on account of financial difficulty. Learned counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of 10% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 10% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. 4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person’s right to appeal and the complainant’s right to speedy justice. The amount deposited can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide timely relief and deter frivolous appeals. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Ltd. & Ors. Ltd. & Ors. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) 2023 (10) 2023 (10) 2023 (10) SCC 446 SCC 446 SCC 446 SCC 446; ; ; ; relevant whereof reads as under: ““““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 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 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 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 submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.”””” 5. The convict bears the onus of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to persuade the appellate court to waive the mandatory deposit of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 Act. Considering the legislative intent behind the provision, which seeks to expedite justice and alleviate the complainant’s hardship due to prolonged litigation, it is generally appropriate for the appellate court to impose this condition when an appeal is filed against a conviction under Section 138. Such a requirement ensures that the complainant is not unjustly deprived of compensation while safeguarding the appellate process from frivolous or dilatory tactics. Under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the requirement to deposit the compensation amount as a condition for appeal is generally mandatory, emphasizing its status as a rule. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Muskan Muskan Muskan Muskan Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, has held thus: ““““xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit, has to be conceded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”””” Ergo, the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises (supra) enunciates that the appellate Court holds the discretion to waive this condition only in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances must be demonstrated through compelling and substantiated material provided by the appellant-convict. Absent such cogent material, it would be in appropriate for appellate Court to impose such condition. This approach ensures adherence to the legislative intent, discouraging frivolous appeals and protecting the interests of the complainant. 5.1. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari case (supra) and Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises (supra), no ground is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19624 19624 19624 19624----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 made out to quash/modify the condition imposed vide the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 10% of the amount of the compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The ground pleaded by the petitioner that he is facing financial difficulty cannot be said to be a ground sufficient enough for carving out an exception from the mandate contained in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It also cannot be said, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that imposition of the condition of deposit of 10% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate can be said to be unjust or would amount to effectively taking away the right of appeal of petitioner. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity nay legal infirmity calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition in hand is dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 7. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Court. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE April 10, 2026 April 10, 2026 April 10, 2026 April 10, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment