Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Punjab Leasing Gaushala And Anr on 11 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149972
117.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM
CRM-M-54335-2024
Date of decision: 11.11
11.11.2024
Paramjit Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Leasing Gaushala Road, Railway Chowk, Sangrur and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Himanshu Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
GURBIR SINGH,
SINGH J.
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for setting aside the order dated
27.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur, in Criminal Appeal bearing No.339 of 2023 titled as Paramjit Singh
Versus Punjab Leasing Gaushala etc.,
etc., whereby the petitioner has been
directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount
amount. Petitioner hass also
sought for quashing the order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P
P-2)
2) whereby
suspension of sentence and bail order dated 27.09.2023 has been cancelled.
2. Vide judgment dated 05.09.2023
05.09.2023, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Sangrur,
Sangrur in a complaint case bearing No.
No.1704 of 24.08.2017,, convicted
the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short, NI Act) and vide separate order of even date
date, he was sentenced
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 year
years was directed to pay the
he
cheque amount of Rs.1,79,200/- with interest @ 6% from the date of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149972
institution of the complaint till date of judgment. Aggrieved, the petitioner
filed appeal and in appeal, though the application seeking suspension of
sentence of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2023, but
subject to deposit of 20% of the total amount of compensation within 60 days.
He sought extension of time to comply with the order dated 27.09.2023 which
was allowed till 04.10.2024, but vide order dated 18.10.2024, his suspension
of sentence and bail order was cancelled.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a poor person and could not arrange for the said amount
of compensation within the time stipulated by the learned Appellate Court. He
has argued that the appellate Court has given no reason for imposing 20% of
the compensation amount as contemplated under Section 148 of the NI Act.
Reliance is placed on judgment in Jamboo Bhandari Versus M.P. State
Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others, Law Finder Doc Id
# 2313888.
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. In case Jamboo Bhandari (supra), it is held that the court is
required to give reasons for imposing penalty of 20%. In case Rakesh Ranjan
Shrivastava Versus The State of Jharkhand and another, Criminal Appeal
No.741 of 2024, decided on 15.03.2024, it has been held that 20% of the
amount is the ceiling as prescribed under the provisions and the Court is
required to give reasons for awarding maximum compensation.
5.1 In the case in hand, the appellate Court has not given any reason
for awarding maximum compensation to the extent of 20%. Since the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149972
impugned order is non-speaking, so the same is not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
5.2 On asking, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is ready to pay 10% of the amount of compensation and some time
be granted.
6. Keeping in view the above, if notice of this petition is given to
the respondents-complainant, it may burden him, so service upon the
respondents-complainant is hereby dispensed with.
7. In the light of above observation, the impugned order dated
27.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur, in Criminal Appeal bearing No.339 of 2023 is modified to the extent
that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the amount of compensation within a
period of 21 days from today, and shall also furnish bail bonds, as directed by
the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 27.09.2023. In case of doing so,
his sentence shall remain suspended to the satisfaction of learned Lower
Appellate Court.
8. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. In case, respondent-complainant is not satisfied with this order,
he can move an application within 30 days before the next date fixed before
the appellate Court for challenging this order.
(GURBIR SINGH)
November 11, 2024 JUDGE
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
