Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh Kauda vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123 CRM-M M No.58479 of 2024
Date of decision: 25.11.2024
MANJEET SINGH KAUDA .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present :
Mr Pawan Attri,, Advocate for the appellant/petitioner.
Mr.
****
MANISHA BATRA,
BATRA J. (oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 07.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra passed in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2024 titled as
Manjeet Singh Kauda vs. Darshan Singh and another, 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 Court
urt before the next date of hearing before it.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for tthe
he 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 requirement for suspension of
sentence
entence 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 reliance upon the
judgments passed by the co-ordinate
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:155214
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,
her, 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 through the material placed on reco
record.
4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 10.09
10.09.2024,
.2024, passed in a complaint
filed under Sections
Section 138/142 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for
commission of offence punishable
punishable under the aforementioned section and apart
from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period two
years for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I., Act had
also directed him to pay compensation of double of the chequ
chequee amount i.e.
`5,40,000/- within two months and in default of payment of compensation
within the abovesaid period 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 appeal before the learned appellate Court and the
appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 07.10.2024,, 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
ot an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155214
CRM-M
that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a
condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant.
This proposition of law is
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 submissions 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
out the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to
the effect 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
imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation
amount/fine, the impugned order dated 07.10
07.10.2024 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 sset
et aside to that
extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding 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
requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation
amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's
Bhandari's case (supra). The petition stands disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
25.11.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
