Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Kishan vs Shubham Munjal on 8 May, 2024

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064087




128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                2024:PHHC:064087
                                CRM-M-23031-2024
                                 Date of Decision: May 08, 2024

Jai Kishan                                       ...Petitioner

                   Versus

Shubham Munjal                                   ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-    Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 02.04.2024 in complaint titled as "Shubham Munjal v. Jai Kishan"

by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. Against

his conviction and sentence, petitioner filed appeal. The Appellate Court

while suspending the sentence of the petitioner on 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-

3), directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as

awarded by the Trial Court within 60 days. It is the aforesaid order, which

has been challenged by this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

was not provided any opportunity of hearing before passing the order.

Petitioner is not in a position to pay any amount and there was exceptional

circumstance due to which petitioner was not required to deposit 20% of the

compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to "Jamboo

Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and

others", Crl. Appeal No.2741 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 4927 of 2023.




                                        1 of 2

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064087




CRM-M-23031-2024                        -2-          2024:PHHC:064087

Learned counsel contends that the Appellate Court was required to consider

as to whether the case of the petitioner falls in the exception or not.

4. Without issuing any notice to the respondent, lest it may delay

the proceedings, the present petition is accepted. The impugned order is set

aside. The Appellate Court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the

law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case

(supra).

5. Since this order has been passed in the absence of the

respondent, therefore, the respondent will be at liberty to approach this

Court, in case he is aggrieved by the order.

May 08, 2024                                    (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita                                               JUDGE
                    Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:        Yes/No




                                      2 of 2