Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar Alias Susheel Kumar vs Jasbir Singh on 18 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123713
130.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM
CRM-M-46504-2024
Date of decision: 18.09
18.09.2024
Sushil Kumar @ Susheel Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
Jasbir Singh .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Ms. Mehak Ghangas, Advocate for
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner.
----
GURBIR SINGH,
SINGH J.
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik
ik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for setting aside the order dated
11.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, in
Criminal Appeal bearing No.105 of 2024 titled as Sushil Kumar Versus
Jasbir Singh,
Singh, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of
the compensation amount as a condition to suspension of sentence.
2. Vide judgment dated 07.02.2024, learned Sub
Sub-Divisional
Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha, in a complaint case bearing
No.NACT/228/2018, convicted the petitioner under Secti
Section
on 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, NI Act) and vide separate
order dated 12.02.2024, he was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 6 months and to pay double the cheque amount of Rs.5 lacs i.e.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123713
Rs.10 lacs. Aggrieved against the said order, he filed appeal but in appeal,
the impugned order has been passed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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, 2023(3) MWN
(Cr.) DCC 104 (SC).
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. In case Jamboo Bhandari (supra), 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 impugned order is non-speaking, so the same does not sustain 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123713
6. Keeping in view the above, if notice of this petition is given to
the respondent-complainant, it may burden him, so service upon the
respondent-complainant is hereby dispensed with.
7. In the light of above observation, the impugned order dated
11.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal bearing No.105 of 2024 is modified
to the extent that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the amount of
compensation within a period of 30 days from today.
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)
JUDGE
September 18, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
