Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhpal Singh vs Gurlal Singh on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128 CRM-M M No.57958 of 2024
Date of decision: 21.11.2024
PRABHPAL SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
GURLAL SINGH .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present :
Mr Sanjeet Singh Taank,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
****
MANISHA BATRA, BATRA J. (oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran passed in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2024 titled as Prabhpal Singh vs. Gurlal Singh, whereby,, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, as awarded to him in criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Co Court urt before the next date of hearing before it.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court, while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not absolute absolute requirement for suspension of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed relia reliance nce upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate co ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM CRM-M-3878-2024, , decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-11-2024 10:33:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147 CRM-M M No.57958 of 2024 -2- Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M-- 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024, 26.04.2024 Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, CRM decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-2024, CRM 2024, decided on 18.01.2024.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone gone through the material placed on record record.
4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 14.10 14.10.2024, .2024, passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty ffor or commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period two years,, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000/-- along with interest @ 9% per per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till the final realization and case of default of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months months.. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid ap appeal peal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2024,, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court Court.
5. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90 90,, it was observed Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied thatt the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-11-2024 10:33:26 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147 CRM-M M No.57958 of 2024 -3- condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co co-ordinate ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid's case (supra) as well as afore cited other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissio submissions ns regarding the exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of depositing of 20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed the said condition without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to the effectt that the appellate Court was firstly required to consider as to whether the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated d 07.11 07.11.2024 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for decid deciding ing the same afresh after re-examining re examining the case by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's Bhandari's case (supra). The petition stands disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
21.11.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 25-11-2024 10:33:26 :::