Punjab-Haryana High Court
Salesh Kumar Rai @ Shailesh Kumar Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031497
2024:PHHC:031497
205-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57621-2022
Date of decision: 05.03.2024
SALESH KUMAR RAI @ SHAILESH KUMAR RAI
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Duhan, Advocate,
Ms. Gaganpreet Pal Kaur, Advocate and
Ms. Isha Dhingra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Meho, Advocate for
Mr. Harjap Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of order dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in CRA-164 of 2022 titled as 'Shailesh
Kumar v. Balraj', whereby, the suspension of sentence has been granted to the
petitioner subject to the condition to deposit 20% amount of the compensation
awarded.
2. The complainant's case in brief is that the petitioner in order to
discharge his legal liability issued a cheque bearing No.722184 dated
22.07.2010 for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi in favour of the complainant. The complainant
presented the cheque in Punjab National Bank, Khatkar, for encashment but the
same was returned back dishonoured vide memo dated 20.01.2011 bearing
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031497
CRM-M-57621-2022 2 2024:PHHC:031497
remarks "Funds Insufficient". The legal notice was sent to the petitioner but of
no effect. Hence the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner.
3. Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, in which, vide
order dated 19.09.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind,
he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for
commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and was
further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thereafter,
the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The
learned Appellate Court vide order dated 19.10.2022, suspended the sentence
of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within
60 days of passing of the order.
4. 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% 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031497
CRM-M-57621-2022 3 2024:PHHC:031497
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 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."
5. 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 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the condition
of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting
suspension of sentence is 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).
7. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 05, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031497
3 of 3
