[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Bodhan Lal vs Nagendra Sharma on 12 March, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 714 of 2026
1 - Bodhan Lal S/o Late Fuduram Deshlahre Aged About 69
Years R/o Morid, Post Dondera, Police Station Utai, Tehsil
Bhilai, 03, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Nagendra Sharma S/o Narad Prasad Sharma, Aged About 35
Years R/o Polsaipara, Near Laxminarayan Mandir, District- Durg
(C.G.)
... Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Kumar Swarnkar, Adv.
For Respondent : Not noticed.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
12/03/2026
1 Heard.
2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 558/2025 by the Learned 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) whereby the
learned Sessions Court has imposed a condition of
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.03.12
16:56:48
+0530
depositing 20% of the compensation/fine amount while
suspending the execution of the judgment dated
07.11.2025 on an application preferred under Section 430
of BNSS, 2023.
3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant
filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the
petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.). The learned trial Court
after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case and evidence adduced in the case passed the
judgment dated 07.11.2025 and convicted the present
petitioner and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 1 year
and directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-
under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. with default stipulation of
three months S.I.
4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment/order the
petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 415 of
BNSS, 2023 before the Learned appellate Court along with
an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for
suspension of execution of judgment/order dated
07.11.2025 which got allowed with a condition that
petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount
while suspending the execution of the judgment/order
dated 07.11.2025.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word
'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act an the
Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any
reason for the same. The learned appellate court has
committed grave error while passing the impugned order
dated 08.12.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of
depositing 20% of the compensation amount while
suspending the execution of order dated 07.11.2025. The
learned 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 Since 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:-
["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 (@
SLP (Crl.) No. 4927 of 2023) on 04.09.2023 held as
under:
1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018.
2 (2023) 10 SCC 446
"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, also
followed the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari
(supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court
as well as the Sessions Court.
9 In the case in hand, impugned order of the learned
Appellate court does not disclose anything that the learned
Appellate court considered whether the cases in the
exception or not? i.e. whether it warrants grant of
suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of
deposit of 20% of the fine / compensation amount.
10 In those circumstances, the impugned order of the
learned Appellate court is set aside and restored the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the
Appellate court. The learned Appellate court shall
reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same
with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then,
the execution of order dated 07.11.2025 passed by Judicial
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024
Magistrate First Class, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in
Criminal Case No. 3605/2015 stands suspended.
11 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of
admission.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
