Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kapoor Alias Rajbir vs Prateek Kharab on 21 November, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152889
CRM-M-56894-2024 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56894-2024
Date of decision: 21.11.2024
Raj Kapoor @ Rajbir ...Petitioner
Versus
Prateek Kharab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking quashing of order dated 18.10.2024 Annexure P-4 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in criminal appeal No.308 of
2024 titled as Raj Kapoor @ Rajbir Vs. Prateek Kharab whereby the
substantive sentence of the petitioner was suspended, subject to the
condition that he shall deposit 20% of the amount of compensation, in the
trial Court on or before the next date fixed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant filed
criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner wherein
on completion of trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment and to pay compensation worth Rs.20 lakhs to the complainant,
vide judgment and order dated 19/21.09.2024. Being aggrieved, petitioner
filed an appeal against the said judgment and order and he also sought
suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate Court
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152889
CRM-M-56894-2024 [2]
entertained the appeal and passed impugned order Annexure P-4.
3. Being not satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision
petition.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that deposit of minimum
of 20% amount of the cheque amount under Section 148 of Negotiable
Instruments Act as a condition to suspend sentence is not an absolute rule as
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.
State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others 2023 (10) SCC
446. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that provision of Section
148 NI Act is not mandatory and the appellate Court passed the impugned
order without application of mind and that the impugned order being illegal is
not sustainable in eye of law.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners .
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra)
has observed that deposit of minimum 20% compensation/fine amount is not
an absolute blanket rule under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act
while considering the request of the accused for suspension of sentence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it was duty of the appellate
Court to give reasons for imposing the condition to deposit 20% of
compensation for suspending the sentence.
8. The appellate Court while suspending a sentence cannot pass a
blanket order in all cases to deposit 20% of the compensation or fine without
assigning any reason. The impugned order is not in consonance with the law
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152889
CRM-M-56894-2024 [3]
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case
(supra).
9. For the forgoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and the
direction to deposit 20% of the cheque amount is set aside. The appellate
Court is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving opportunity of hearing
to petitioner and respondent, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra). Till fresh orders are
passed by the appellate Court as directed above, no coercive steps shall be
taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the
appellate Court on the date already fixed in the appeal.
10. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent. However, if she feel dis-satisfied with
this order, she may move an application to recall the same.
21.11.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
