Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Bajaj Industries And Another vs Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation ... on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082359
CRM--M-28038-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121 CRM-M-28038-20242024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.07.2024
.07.2024
M/s Bajaj Industries and another ...Petitioner
Petitioners
Versus
Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Deepika Bagri, Advocate and
Mr. Anupma Singla, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
MANISHA BATRA,
BATRA J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P
P-1),, passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in Criminal Appeal
No. 336 of 2023,
2023 titled as M/s Bajaj Industri
Industries
es vs. Punjab Agro Food
Grains,, whereby, while suspending the sentence of petitioner No. 2, who is
proprietor of the firm/petitioner No. 1, as awarded to him in criminal
complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short
hort 'N.I. Act'),
Act'), the learned appellate Court had directed petitioner No.
2 to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court
Co
within a period of 60 days with the trial Court.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
petitioners that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate
Court, while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that the deposit
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082359
of 20% of the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for
suspension of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional
circumstances. It is further argued that on the same allegations, an FIR
bearing No. 38 dated 06.04.2018 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC was
also registered against petitioner No. 2 at Police Statin City Jalalabad,
District Ferozepur qua the same transaction. However, vide judgment dated
05.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), petitioner No. 2 stands acquitted from the
charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt. Hence, it is urged
that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set
aside. To fortify his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the authorities
cited as Amit Kapoor vs. Parminder Singh : 2024 NCPHHC 28608, Jambo
Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And
others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh vs. State of
Haryana and another : Law Finder Doc Id # 2411306, Rakesh Ranjan
Srivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and another : 2024 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 279, Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. And
another : (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 528, Harjinder Singh vs. HDFC
Bank Ltd. and another : 2022 ACD 928 and Chennai-600033 and others
vs. P. Anbazhagan and others : 2020 (2) NIJ 727.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, who has advance notice of
the petition, has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order
passed by the appellate Court directing the petitioners to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount awarded by the trial Court as in an appeal against
conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 N.I. Act, the appellate
Court, as per Section 148 N.I. Act, has the power to grant suspension of
sentence pending appeal with imposition of a condition for payment of a
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082359
minimum 20% of compensation/fine amount as ordered by the trial Court.
Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have also gone through the material placed on record.
5. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2023, passed in a complaint
filed under Section 38 of N. I. Act, had held petitioner No. 2 guilty for
commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and
apart from awarding sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of
cheque amount i.e. Rs. 38,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of issuance of cheque till the date of passing the order. The
petitioners challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid
appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide
impugned order dated 20.10.2023, suspended the sentence of petitioner
No. 2 , subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation amount with the
trial Court.
5. In Jambo Bhandari's case (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not an
absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied that
the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a condition
will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This
proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate
Benches of this Court in Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh' case (supra) and Amit
Kapoor's case (supra). In the instant case, while imposing condition of
deposit of 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082359
shown to have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions
regarding the exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver
of depositing of 20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed
the said condition without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled
proposition of law to the effect that the appellate Court was firstly required
to consider as to whether the instant case falls within the exceptions
warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of
deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated
20.10.2023 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the
condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed.
Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. The matter is remanded to
learned appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after re-examining the
case by granting an opportunity to the petitioners to make submissions
regarding exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of
depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jambo Bhandari's case (supra). The
petition stands disposed of.
03.07.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
