Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035389
117 2024:PHHC:035389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-3913-2024 &
2. CRM-M-3928-2024
DECIDED ON: 12.03.2024
JASWANT SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2023
(Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of
the cheque amount in Appeal No.379 of 2023, titled as "Jaswant Singh
versus Gurdeep Singh", dated 20.11.2023, pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for 08.02.2024, filed a complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide complaint No.NACT-
20-2019, dated 29.01.2019 titled as "Gurdeep Singh versus Jaswant Singh"
before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 reveals that
statement on oath has been made by the petitioner being a convict that he
would make the payment of 20% of the cheque amount on account of
compensation within a period of sixty days which lapsed on 21.01.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.2741 of 2023 titled
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035389
1. CRM-M-3913-2024 & -2-
2. CRM-M-3928-2024
as "Jamboo Bhandari versus M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors.", decided on 04.09.2023, whereby heavily
referring to concluding part of the judgment that in case the appellant shows
sufficient cause before the Court it may waive off the statutory provision of
20% deposited out of compensation amount/fine.
At the same time, this Court in "Rajni Dhingra versus Sanjeev
Chugh" (CRM-M-28681-2022), decided on 11.08.2023, considered the
question of validity for imposing the restriction to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount as a pre-requisite for suspending the sentence on the
touchstone of the decision in "Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal
& Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi", (2019) II SCC 34, wherein the Apex Court,
after having considered the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act and the
objects and reasons for its enactment by way of Amendment No.20/2018,
held that the power of the Appellate Court in directing the accused to deposit
more than 20% of the fine is mandatory in nature and as such upheld such
stipulation for suspension of sentence. The relevant portion of Rajni Dhingra
reads as under:-
"21.It is also well known to this Court that certain
unscrupulous and notorious drawers of the dishonored
cheque have been misusing the procedural delay to their
advantage after obtaining stay on the proceedings which
only frustrates the basic object and reason of
incorporation of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
The amendment in Section 148 of the said Act has been
cautiously effected primarily having at the back of mind
to expedite the disposal of proceedings under the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035389
1. CRM-M-3913-2024 & -3-
2. CRM-M-3928-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act and by no stretch of
discussion, it could be said that the substantive right of
appeal of the accused-appellant has been taken away/or
effected.
22. Further the Apex Court in Surender Singh Deswal
(supra) has observed that amended Section 148 of NI Act,
1881 has purposively interpreted in such a manner it is
done so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases
considering the fact that once after easy filing of the
appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, injustice
creep in to the payee of a dishonored cheque, who is
forced to spend considerable time and resources in
litigation to realise the value of the cheque resultantly
compromise the sanctity of the cheque transaction.
23.In the light of discussions made hereinabove and the
case law Surender Singh Deswal (supra), the petitions
hereby are dismissed being devoid of merits. The
petitioners-accused are directed to deposit the amount as
ordered by the Lower Appellate Court within the
stipulated time of 60 days, which may be further extended
by 30 days.
24.It is however further made clear that the period of 60
days shall now be counted from the date a certified copy
of the order received by the trial Court."
This very fact cannot be lost sight by this Court that there may
be circumstances in cases which may warrant invoking of exceptional clause
from Section 141 Cr.P.C. which is enunciated in the case of Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra) but the case in hand is totally distinct in facts and
circumstances changing the whole legal proposition in itself wherein the
petitioner at the first instance seems to have acted smartly while moving an
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035389
1. CRM-M-3913-2024 & -4-
2. CRM-M-3928-2024
application before the learned Lower Appellate Court on 21.11.2023 and
obtained the order for suspension of sentence subject to deposit of 20% of
the total compensation amount within a period of 60 days and once his
sentence was suspended showing trust upon him by the Court, he cleverly
comes before this Court seeking setting aside the above-said order.
In the instant petition, the petitioner has failed to make out his
case in bringing the same under such exemption and explanation for this
Court to carve out granting him waiver or any concession in the
fine/compensation to the tune of 20% which is required to be deposited at
the time of filing of appeal.
Order dated 21.11.2023 would clearly reveal that the sentence
of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of appeal before it
subject to deposit of 20% of the cheque amount within a period of 60 days
and to that the petitioner did not move any application before the said Court
for bringing his case under any of the exemption as to how he is not in a
position to deposit the aforesaid statutory amount.
Hence, the present petition being devoid of any merits as no
sufficient ground has been raised even before this Court, stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
12.03.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
