Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarif Mohammad Alias Sareef Mohammad vs Swaran Singh And Another on 26 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057281
CRM-M-20840 of 2024 1
2024:PHHC: 057281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20840 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad
...Petitioner
Versus
Swaran Singh & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
For the petitioner.
***
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for setting aside of order dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in CRA-178/2023 titled
as Sarif Mohammad Vs. Swaran Singh & Anr. whereby the sentence of the
petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been
suspended subject to the condition to pay 20% amount of the compensation
awarded by the trial Court within 60 days.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1
filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner
wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
R.I. for a period of 1 year and six months and to pay compensation worth
Rs.1,70,000/- under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment and order dated
05.04.2023 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla. Being
aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal against the said judgment and
order and the Appellate Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 has entertained
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057281
2024:PHHC: 057281
the appeal and also disposed of application seeking suspension of sentence
with direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned trial Court, within 60 days in the
learned trial Court, as per provisions contained in Section 148 of the NI Act,
failing which the order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to be
vacated in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Surender Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal & Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi
& Anr. 2020(1) SCC (Cri.) 506.
3. 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
in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons 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, wherein it was
observed 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% 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 petitioner 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057281
2024:PHHC: 057281
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."
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the
impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and is
of the view that the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 to the extent whereby
petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded
by trial Court is not passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the
afore-stated settled position of law.
5. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 03.05.2023
to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of compensation
amount awarded by the trial Court has been imposed for the purpose of
suspension of sentence, is hereby set aside. The Appellate Court is directed
to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and till then not to take any coercive action
against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Appellate Court on the next date fixed in the appeal.
6. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondents. However, if they feel dis-satisfied
with this order, they may move an application to recall the same.
(KARAMJIT SINGH )
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Jiten
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
