Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dayanand vs Dharambir And Another on 26 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057265
CRM-M-20451 of 2024 1
2024:PHHC: 057265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20451 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Dayanand
...Petitioner
Versus
Dharambir & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate
For the petitioner.
***
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking quashing of order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri in Criminal Appeal No. CRA-13-
2024 titled as The Sat Saheb Coop., L&C Society Limited through its
President Daya Nand Vs. Dharambir & Anr. whereby the substantive
sentence of the petitioner was suspended subject to condition that he shall
deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation awarded by the learned
trial Court within next 60 days as per provision contained in Section 148 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/complainant
filed criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner
wherein on completion of trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay compensation worth
Rs.80,00,000/- under Section 138 NI Act by the Court of Addl. Chief
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057265
2024:PHHC: 057265
Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and order dated
15/16.01.2024. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal against the
said judgment and order passed by the trial Court and he also sought
suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate
Court entertained the appeal and passed impugned order dated 12.02.2024.
3. Being not satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision
petition.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that deposit of minimum
of 20% amount under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act as a
condition to suspend sentence is not an absolute rule as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. And others 2023 (10) SCC 446. The
counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus, provision of Section 148
NI Act is not mandatory and the appellate Court passed the impugned order
without application of mind and that the impugned order being illegal is not
sustainable in eye of law.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra)
has observed that deposit of minimum 20% compensation/fine amount is not
an absolute blanket rule under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act
while considering the request of the accused for suspension of sentence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it was duty of the appellate
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057265
2024:PHHC: 057265
Court to give reasons for imposing the condition to deposit 20% of
compensation for suspending the sentence.
8. The appellate Court while suspending a sentence cannot pass a
blanket order in all cases to deposit 20% of the compensation or fine without
assigning any reason. The impugned order is not in consonance with the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case
(supra).
9. For the forgoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and the
direction to deposit 20% of compensation amount is set aside. The appellate
Court is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving opportunity of hearing
to petitioner and respondent, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra). Till fresh orders are
passed by the appellate Court as directed above, no coercive steps shall be
taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
appellate Court on the date already fixed in the appeal.
10. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. 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
