Chattisgarh High Court
Jharokha Ram vs Krishna Kumar Sahu on 21 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:3617
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 227 of 2025
1 - Jharokha Ram S/o Shri Babulal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Arroud Post
Giroud, P.S. And Tahsil- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Accused)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Late Umed Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Megha
(Senhabhatha) Post Megha P.S. And Tahsil-Magarlod, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Director Of
Bhagwati Traders Megha) (Complainant)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
21/01/2025
1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order
dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2024, wherein
the application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 and Section
430 of BNSS, 2023 has been allowed by the learned appellate
court with the condition that 20% of the compensation amount is
to be deposited within 60 days.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the
accused are well acquainted with each other and under the same
relationship, the complainant had given rods and cement worth
Rs. 1,33,690/- (One lakh thirty three thousand six hundred and
ninety rupees) to the accused on credit. The accused had
personally contacted the complainant and purchased rods,
cement and other materials from his establishment. Thus, the
accused had to pay Rs. 1,33,690/- to the complainant for the said
transaction. The loan amount was outstanding. After a long time,
in March, 2021 when the complainant needed his money, he
demanded the money for the goods given to the accused on
credit. For the purpose of returning the money, the accused gave
the complainant a cheque bearing no. 465699 dated 25.03.2021
of UCO Bank Branch Kurud, District- Dhamtari, in the name of
Bhagwati Traders Megha for the payment of the said amount. The
complainant deposited the above cheque provided by the accused
in his Dena Bank, now Bank of Baroda, Branch-Megha, District-
Dhamtari informed the complainant through its return memo dated
13.07.2021 that the drawer has given a stop payment (PAYMENT
STOPPED BY DRAWER) in the account of the cheque prayer.
Due to which payment is not possible. Thus, when the
complainant personally contacted the accused after the cheque
bounced, the accused did not respond to the information of the
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that imposition of
condition by learned Appellate Court for payment of 20% of fine
amount against the petitioner for suspension of sentence imposed
against him, is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section
148 of the Act of 1881. He would further submit that imposition of
such condition is not mandatory in nature. Thus, on this count the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order to the
extent of directing 20% of the compensation amount. To
substantiate this submission the petitioner has referred to
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo
Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. & Others (2023) 10 SCC 446 wherein it has been held in
para 9 and 10 as under:-
"9. We disagree with the above submission. When an
accused applies under Section 389 of 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 Court 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."
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
5. In Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that deposition of 20% compensation while preferring appeal
under Section 148 is not an absolute rule and the Appellate Court
can consider whether the case is an exception and record the
reason for its exception in conclusion. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in same case has considered the judgment of Surinder
Singh Deswal alias Colonel S. S. Deswal and Others Vs.
Virender Gandhi wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the word used is "may", it is generally to be construed as a
"rule" or "shall" and not to direct to deposit by the Appellate Court
is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned and
the Appellate Court directed for depositing 20% of
compensation/fine amount as imposed by learned Trial Court.
Thus, purposive interpretation of Section 148 of N.I. Act is that
normally the Appellate Court will be just in imposing the condition
of depositing as provided under Section 148 of N.I. Act. 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.
6. Considering the above stated legal position, I am of the view that
if the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of compensation
amount, the object of provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act, 1881
will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 110/2024 so far as it relates to condition of
imposing 20% is set-aside and it is directed that within one month
from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court, the
petitioner will deposit 15% of the compensation amount.
7. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed in part.
8. Certified Copy today.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Madhurima
