Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suchitra Chhabra vs M/S Sandeep Gilhotra Enterprises on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039250
CRR-583-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:039250
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-583-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
Suchitra Chhabra
... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Sandeep Gilhotra Enterprises
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-12680-2024
1. The present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has
been filed praying for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the revision
petition.
2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is
allowed and delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
CRR-583-2024
3. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 27.10.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, in Criminal Appeal
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039250
2024:PHHC:039250
No.420 of 2023 titled as 'Suchitra Chhabra Vs. M/s Sandeep Gilhotra
Enterprises', whereby the petitioner has been ordered to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within a period of 60 days.
4. In brief, facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the
respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') on the
allegation that in discharge of its liability, petitioner on behalf of M/s Bala Ji
Food Rice Mills-accused No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.699585 dated
30.08.2017 for an amount of Rs.16,54,573/- drawn on Punjab National Bank
in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the aforesaid cheque was
dishonoured by HDFC Bank on 01.09.2017 with the remarks "Funds
Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant apprised the accused persons about
dishonouring of the cheque in question, but to no effect. Ultimately, the
respondent-complainant sent a demand notice dated 08.09.2017 demanding
the cheque amount, however, the petitioner failed to discharge the legal
liability. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of
the NI Act, in which the petitioner stood convicted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, vide judgment and order of sentence dated
25.09.2023 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year and further to pay compensation to the tune of cheque amount along
with interest @6% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till
passing of the judgment of conviction. Against the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039250
2024:PHHC:039250
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, who, vide order dated
27.10.2023, directed him to pay 20% of the compensation within a period of
60 days, while suspending sentence of the petitioner. Against this order, the
petitioner approached this Court by way of instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that while
allowing the application of the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence,
imposition of condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is unjust
and arbitrary and against the proposition of law settled in the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. MP
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others 2013 (12) SCALE
611, wherein it is held that deposit of minimum 20% of the compensation
amount is not an absolute rule. It is further contended that deposit of 20% of
the compensation amount cannot be a condition precedent, while allowing
bail to the petitioner and the learned Appellate Court ought to have
considered the exceptional circumstances for waiving off the said condition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the lower Appellate Court
has passed the impugned order without considering the exceptional
circumstances qua imposition of condition of deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount.
7. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra), speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka has held as
under:-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039250
2024:PHHC:039250
"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."
8. In view of the settled law, the lower Appellate Court was
required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 is set aside to the extent
of imposition of condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039250
2024:PHHC:039250
and the matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court to re-examine
the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions
regarding the exceptional circumstances, which warrants waiver of the
requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the learned
trial Court, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra).
9. The instant petition stands disposed of in above terms.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
19.03.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
