1 2026:CGHC:2180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 134 of 2026 Satish Jain S/o Late Jawahar Jain, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Flat No. 601, 602, Block No. 07, Ashoka Ratan Society, Khamardih, Vidhan Sabha Road, District- Raipur, C.G.- 4920067 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mrs. Seema Devi Agrawal W/o Tarun Kumar Agrawal R/o House No. 308, Ward No. 35, Nandai Chowk, Mohara Road, Jindal Poha Mill And Murmura Udyog, P.S.- Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 14.01.2026 1 Heard. 2 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking amendment/modification of the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 169/2025 to the extent of setting aside the condition imposed on the petitioner to mandatorily deposit 10% of the compensation. 3 The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.2/complainant filed a case before the JMFC, Rajnandgaon under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner, in which, vide judgment dated 29.11.2025, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500 with default stipulation and he was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the complainant. 4 Being aggrieved by the judgement dated 29.11.2025, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 169/2025) under Section 415(3) of BNSS, 2023 before the appellate Court along with an application under Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of execution of order dated 29.11.2025. The said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025 with a condition that if the petitioner deposits 10% of the compensation amount within 30 days and furnishes a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with surety in the like sum to the concerned trial Court, he would be released on bail and the execution of the sentence awarded to him would be suspended till disposal of the said appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any 3 reason for the same. Learned appellate Court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 10% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 16.12.2025. The 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 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 , following the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. 9 In the instant case, the appellate Court, while passing the impugned order, has not mentioned any reason for imposing the condition of 10% of the compensation amount for suspension of sentence. 10 In view of the same, the impugned order of the Appellate Court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430(1) of BNSS before the Appellate Court is restored. Learned Appellate Court shall reconsider the said application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then, the execution of the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by Judicial 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024 5 Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3100/2019 shall remain suspended. 11 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai