Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs State Bank Of India And Another on 21 March, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041116
CRR-593 of 2024 1
2024:PHHC: 041116
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-593 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
Jagtar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the petitioner.
***
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
CRM-13034 of 2024
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 65 days in filing the instant criminal revision stands
condoned.
CRR-593 of 2024
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for setting aside of order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in CRA-375/2023 titled as Jagtar Singh Vs.
State Bank of India whereby the sentence of the petitioner under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act has been suspended subject to the condition
to pay 20% amount of the compensation awarded by the trial Court.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent filed
criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner
wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
R.I. for a period of 1 year and to pay compensation worth Rs.30,00,000/-
under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2023 by the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041116
2024:PHHC: 041116
Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Sirsa. Being aggrieved, petitioner has
preferred appeal against the said judgment and order and the Appellate Court
vide order dated 19.10.2023 has entertained the appeal and also disposed of
application seeking suspension of sentence with direction to the petitioner to
deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial
Court, within 60 days in the learned trial Court, as per provisions contained
in Section 148 of the NI Act, failing which the order of suspension of
sentence shall be deemed to be vacated in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal &
Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi & Anr. 2020(1) SCC (Cri.) 506.
3. 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
in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons 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, wherein it was
observed 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. 7. Therefore,
when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041116
2024:PHHC: 041116
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."
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the
impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and is
of the view that the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 to the extent whereby
petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded
by trial Court is not passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the
afore-stated settled position of law. While passing the said direction, the
Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and no reason is given by the said
Court while issuing aforesaid direction.
5. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 19.10.2023
to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of compensation
amount awarded by the trial Court has been imposed for the purpose of
suspension of sentence, is hereby set aside. The Appellate Court is directed
to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and till then not to take any coercive action
against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Appellate Court on the next date fixed in the appeal.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041116
2024:PHHC: 041116
6. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondents. However, if they feel dis-satisfied with
this order, they may move an application to recall the same.
(KARAMJIT SINGH )
21.03.2024 JUDGE
Jiten
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
