Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165054
2023:PHHC:165054
148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64537-2023
Date of decision: 21.12.2023
Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting
aside of order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) as well as order dated
08.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kaithal in CRA-22-2019 dated 16.01.2019 titled as 'Sunil Kumar Vs. Surender
Singh' vide which the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned trial Court i.e. 20% of Rs.9 lakh within
60 days from the date of order and further cancel the order of suspension of
sentence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent
No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of dishonouring of
cheque bearing No. 002755 dated 14.06.2016 amounting to Rs.9 lakhs issued in
favour of the complainant/respondent No.2 by the petitioner in discharge of his
liability. Respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioner in which vide
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165054
2023:PHHC:165054
order dated 21.12.2018, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of seven months and was further directed to pay compensation to the
tune of Rs.9 lakh i.e. the amount of cheque, within two months from the date of
order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment
of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kaithal. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 31.08.2023,
suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the
compensation amount. The petitioner was unable to arrange the requisite
compensation amount, therefore, the order of suspension of sentence was
revoked and the trial Court was directed to execute the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence. In pursuance of said directions, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kaithal, vide order dated 08.12.2023 issued arrest warrant against the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right
perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation and
such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@
SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking
through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows:-
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation
should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally,
Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of
deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the
Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20%
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165054
2023:PHHC:165054
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.
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 4
conclusion must be recorded."
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing
the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the lower Appellate Court
was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not.
The impugned order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby, the condition
of depositing 20% of compensation amount awarded has been imposed for
granting suspension of sentence and order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-6),
whereby, bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the
State, are hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-
examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make
submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is
an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20%
of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court.
6. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court
with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light
of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case
(supra).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165054
2023:PHHC:165054
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.12.2023
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165054
4 of 4
