Chattisgarh High Court
Satguru Interpries vs R.K. Ispat on 13 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:1982
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 115 of 2025
1 - Satguru Interpries Through Partner- Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, S/o Nandlal
Agrawal Mehadia Aged About 48 Years, Address- Shop No. 464,
Sardarbazar Golcha Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
2 - Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal S/o Nandlal Agrawal Mehadia Aged About 48
Years R/o 261 Vighnesh Eternia, Behind Kriims Hospital, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra 440010
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - R.K. Ispat Through Proprietor- Manoj Sarawagi, S/o Late Satyanarayan
Sarawagi, Age 64 Years, R/o Subhash Road Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent/s
For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
13/01/2025
1. This petition under Section 528 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Session
Judge, Raipur for Special Judge, under SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Raipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner
before the Session Court under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 has
been allowed subject to the condition of deposit of 20 % of the Rs.
40,00,000/- within a period of 60 days.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.01.14
11:13:39
+0530 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (for short 'the Act of 1881') and
sentenced with Simple imprisonment of three months and to pay fine of
Rs. 40,00,000/- with default stipulation. He further submits that the
petitioner/accused filed application under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S.
2023 before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 449/2024 for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail which was allowed by the
learned Appellate Court but apart from the condition for furnishing
personal bond and surety, condition of depositing 8,00,000/- ie. 20% of
fine amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has been imposed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the deposit of 20% as a
condition to suspend the sentence is not an absolute rule and deprives
the right of appeal. Suspension of sentence of convicted person also
comes under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
any such condition cannot be imposed which can deprive him from his
personal liberty. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari Vs.
M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others
passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2741 OF 2023 (@ SLP(CRL.)
No(s). 4927 OF 2023) hence, it is prayed that condition with regard to
the payment of 20% of fine amount stipulated by the learned appellate
court within 60 days, may be set aside. He has also placed his reliance
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali
Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Another passed in CRM. No.
5495/2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6298/2024).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the
appellate court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with utmost circumspection.
6. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in para 9 & 10 as under:-
"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.
10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High
Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit
of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not
accommodate any exception."
7. In the present case, learned Appellate Court has imposed mandatory
condition for payment of 20% of fine amount against the petitioner for
suspension of sentence imposed against him, whereas as per
provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act of 1881, imposition of such
condition is not mandatory, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), therefore, I am inclined to allow this
petition. The condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court for
payment of 20% of the fine amount is hereby set aside. However, the
other conditions imposed by the learned Appellate Court for suspension
of sentence shall remain intact.
8. However, the respondent herein has right to file an application before
the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 188I. In the event of filing an application under Section 148 of NI
Act, learned Appellant Court is directed to decide the application after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties on its own merits without
prejudice to the order of this Court.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
