Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravjot Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 3 July, 2024
CRM-M-31207-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.127
Case No. : CRM-M-31207-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 03, 2024
Ravjot Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
Vijay Kumar .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is to the order dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (for brevity - Appellate Court) in
Criminal Appeal No.9794 dated 17.11.2022, whereby the petitioner has been
directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148-A of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as - the Act). In
case of failure to deposit the said amount, it was ordered that the bail granted
to the petitioner would be cancelled and he would be taken into custody.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, are
that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act
against the petitioner on the ground that the cheque issued by the petitioner
was duly presented in the bank in time but the same was dishonoured.
CRM-M-31207-2024 (O&M) -2-
Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the petitioner but he failed to pay the
amount of cheque. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for
commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act and he was ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay
compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- to the respondent/complainant. The petitioner
preferred appeal and along with the appeal, moved application for
suspension of sentence, wherein the impugned order was passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that imposition of
condition payment of interim compensation under Section 148 of the Act is
not an absolute rule. In exceptional circumstances, such a condition can be
waived. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled
Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. and others reported as 2023 (10) SCC 446 and also on a judgment
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-28802-2024 titled
Ravjot Singh vs. Paramjit Singh, decided on 31.05.2024. It is further
submitted that the learned Appellate Court passed the order considering that
the interim compensation needed to be awarded and judgment of conviction
has already been passed and the Court failed to consider the plea raised by
the petitioner regarding theft of the cheque prior to institution of the
complaint.
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
and have also gone through the case file.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jamboo Bhandari
(supra), has held as under :-
CRM-M-31207-2024 (O&M) -3-
"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 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."
6. In the light of the above mentioned judgment, passed in Jamboo
Bhandari (supra), the learned Appellate Court was required to consider
whether the present case falls under exception or not. So, the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, since it is passed in violation of
the provisions of the above mentioned authority i.e. Jamboo Bhandari
(supra).
7. Notice of this petition is not being issued to the respondent
because if notice is issued to the respondent, then it may prolong the matter
CRM-M-31207-2024 (O&M) -4-
and would also cause financial burden on the respondent. So, service on the
respondent in this matter is dispensed with.
8. In the light of above discussion, the impugned order dated
28.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner has been directed to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148-A of the Act, is
hereby set aside. The learned Appellate Court is directed to pass the order
afresh, after granting opportunity to the parties with regard to, whether the
petitioner is able to make out a ground that his case falls under exceptional
category which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing
the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount or whether
the petitioner is liable to pay less amount of compensation.
9. Accordingly, the case is remanded to learned Appellate Court to
proceed further in accordance with law.
10. The petitioner is directed to appear through his counsel before the
learned Appellate Court on 15.07.2024.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
July 03, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
