Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs Atul Kumar And Anr on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153714
CRR-2311-2024 -1-
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2311-2024
DECIDED ON: 19.11.2024
DAVINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
ATUL KUMAR AND ANR
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been preferred assailing the order
dated 30.10.2024 vide which application for deposit of 20% amount out of the said
compensation has been declined.
The factual matrix leading to the filing of instant petition would depict
that the petitioner allegedly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- from the
respondent/complainant in the July 2018 and in discharge of that liability issued
post dated cheque No.000001 dated 28.09.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,94,000/-.
It is averred on behalf of the complainant that the said cheque was
declined on presentation vide memo dated 29.09.2018 with the remarks "Account
Closed".
Despite issuance of statutory legal notice by the
respondent/complainant, the petitioner is alleged to have not made the necessary
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153714
payment and complaint in question was preferred on 22.11.2017 under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short referred as 'Act').
Finally in the said complaint, the petitioner was convicted vide
judgment dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) for a period of one year RI alongwith a
direction to pay compensation to the tune of cheque amount i.e., 1,40,000/-
alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque in
question.
It is against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka alongwith an application
seeking suspension of sentence.
The said application was dismissed by the Court below and warrant of
arrest were issued against the petitioner on his failure to deposit the 20%
compensation amount within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of
passing of order dated 17.08.2022 as per the mandate of statutory vide Section 148
of Act.
This order was challenged before the High Court on an earlier occasion
vide CRM-M-53293-2024, which was disposed of on 24.10.2024 after the
statement made by the petitioner to the effect that he is ready and willing to deposit
the said amount and accordingly, the petitioner was remanded back for the said
purpose with a direction that if any application for suspension of sentence is filed by
the petitioner, the same be considered in accordance with law on that very day.
After passing of the said order dated 24.10.2024 by this Court, the
necessary application was filed seeking permission to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount, but the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated
30.10.2024 has declined the said application on the ground that 90 days period
prescribed under Section 148(2) of the Act for such deposit having lapsed, after it
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153714
was calculated from the date of order i.e., 17.08.2022. The application for
suspension of sentence also stands declined observing that it is not feasible for the
Additional Sessions Judge to permit the appellant to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount after expiry of limitation period of 90 days without any
specific direction to condone the period by the High Court.
It is in this eventuality, the present petition has been preferred for short
question that "whether the period of 90 days as envisaged under Section 148(2) of
the Act can be extended by condoning the delay?"
This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that Section 143A read with
Section 148 of the Act do crystallize the intent of legislation i.e., the sole purpose of
extending minimum relief by way of such statutory restriction after conviction at
the appellate stage, if suspension of sentence is sought by an accused. The
proceedings conducted under the Act are summary in nature and intricacies and
technicalities of law should not come in between the object where the advancement
of justice demands for consideration of condonation of delay by extending time of
limitation beyond the period prescribed under the Act.
The inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
(528 BNSS 2023) would include the power to extend such period of limitation if
sufficient and reasonable cause is shown with bonafide on the part of the accused.
In the present petition, the petitioner's counsel has taken the stance that
initially, the petitioner appeared in person due to unavoidable circumstances before
the Lower Appellate Court, which prevented the counsel from providing necessary
legal support, and petitioner actually could not put forth his own case and failed
understand the complications of not depositing the 20% of the compensation
amount, which resulted into the issuance of warrants of arrest. However, he
immediately approached this court vide CRM-M-53293-2024, wherein an
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153714
undertaking was given to deposit the said amount before the Lower Appellate
Court, as is evident from the order dated 24.10.2024 and in that endeavour
petitioner moved the necessary application alongwith a prayer for suspension of
sentence.
However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka declined the said
application citing the period of 90 days having expired as is the mandate of Section
148(2) of the Act and against that order even today in the present revision petition,
the stand of the petitioner is still the same that he is ready and willing to deposit the
necessary amount without any delay.
Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition and discussions
made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that sufficient cause is available on
the part of the petitioner, who being a laymen, was not having appropriate legal
assistance on 17.08.2024, on account of which having failed to understand the legal
intricacies in appropriate manner did not deposit the amount of 20%, which resulted
into multiplicity of litigation.
It can never be the intent of judicial process in such like offence, where
the summary proceedings are to be conducted. The approach of the Courts should
be liberal and based on equity with the purpose of providing level playing field to
each and every litigant including to an accused.
It is also evident from the sequence of litigation, in which the petitioner
was involved after passing of the orders dated 17.08.2022 and 30.10.2024, he
sought suspension of sentence and thereafter warrant of arrest were issued, which
were challenged before this Court and again an application was moved seeking
permission before the Additional Sessions Judge to deposit the 20% amount of the
compensation.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153714
After having given a considerable thought, I am of the considered view
that the bona fide of the petitioner is quite evident from the fact that he is ready and
willing to deposit the 20% amount of compensation as per the order dated
17.08.2022. Hence, the delay occurred for depositing of aforesaid amount beyond
the prescribed limitation of 90 days is hereby condoned and the same extended
further.
However, it shall be imperative upon the petitioner to move necessary
application afresh before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fazilka for
permission to deposit the 20% as directed vide order dated 17.08.2022, who shall
consider the said application and decide the same in light of observations made
hereinabove.
The application stands disposed off, accordingly.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
19.11.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
