Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhpal Singh vs Gurlal Singh on 21 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128 CRM-M M No.57958 of 2024
Date of decision: 21.11.2024
PRABHPAL SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
GURLAL SINGH .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present :
Mr Sanjeet Singh Taank,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
****
MANISHA BATRA,
BATRA J. (oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Tarn Taran passed in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2024 titled as
Prabhpal Singh vs. Gurlal Singh, whereby,, while suspending the sentence of
the petitioner, as awarded to him in criminal complaint filed under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') deposit 20% of the
compensation amount as awarded by the trial Co
Court
urt before the next date of
hearing before it.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court,
while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that deposit of 20% of
the compensation amount was not absolute
absolute requirement for suspension of
sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances.
Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is
liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed relia
reliance
nce upon the
judgments passed by the co-ordinate
co ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs.
Kuldeep Singh, CRM
CRM-M-3878-2024,
, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147
CRM-M
Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M--
20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024,
26.04.2024 Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar
and another, CRM-M-6508-2024,
CRM decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs.
Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-2024,
CRM 2024, decided on 18.01.2024.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable
length and have also gone
gone through the material placed on record
record.
4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 14.10
14.10.2024,
.2024, passed in a complaint
filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty ffor
or
commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart
from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period two
years,, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000/--
along with interest @ 9% per
per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till
the final realization and case of default of compensation to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months
months.. The petitioner challenged the
order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid ap
appeal
peal before the learned
appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide impugned order dated
07.11.2024,, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20%
of the compensation amount with the trial Court
Court.
5. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90
90,, it was observed
Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was
not an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied
thatt the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153147
CRM-M
condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant.
This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co
co-ordinate
ordinate
Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid's case (supra) as well as afore cited
other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of
20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have
given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissio
submissions
ns regarding the
exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of depositing of
20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed the said condition
without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to
the effectt that the appellate Court was firstly required to consider as to whether
the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of
sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation
amount/fine, the impugned order dated
d 07.11
07.11.2024 cannot be stated to be
sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that
extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for decid
deciding
ing the
same afresh after re-examining
re examining the case by granting an opportunity to the
petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances
warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation
amount in pursuance of judgment passed
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's
Bhandari's case (supra). The petition stands disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
21.11.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
