Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arvind Sharma vs Rajinder Parkash on 20 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124507
CRR No.1842 of 2024 -1-
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1842 of 2024
Date of decision : 20.09.2024
Arvind Sharma
.....Petitioner
versus
Rajinder Parkash
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed seeking quashing/setting aside
the order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Ld. Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in CRA No. 220 of 2024 titled as "Arvind
Sharma vs. Rajinder Parkash" whereby the Petitioner has been directed to
deposit 20% of compensation amount as awarded by Ld. Trial Court vide
order dated 31.05.2024 passed in complaint case no. NACT-17248-2018
dated 06.09.2018 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, within a
period of 60 days, in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case titled as Jamboo Bhandari Versus M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors reported in 2023 (4) RCR (Criminal) 296, as
opportunity of explaining the exceptional circumstances has not been granted
while imposing the above said condition of 20%. Further prayer has been
made for staying the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 imposing condition
of deposit of 20% of compensation amount during the pendency of said
appeal.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124507
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner was
convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for brevity,`the NI
Act'), vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 01 year and was ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner assailed the order
dated 31.05.2024 by filing an appeal before the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge at Chandigarh, which is admitted for hearing on merits.
Though application for suspension of sentence of petitioner was allowed,
however, the Appellate Court, vide impugned order, dated 03.07.2024,
ordered the petitioner to pay 20% of the compensation amount under Section
357(3) Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the petitioner has not been provided any
opportunity of hearing to submit his defence before the order was passed and
hence the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that
the impugned order has been passed by the learned Appellate Court in
violation of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari
vs M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023
(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 wherein it has been held that when Appellate Court
considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has
been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, it is always open
for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which
warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of
deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case or not,
the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded, which is
missing in the present case.
3. Heard.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124507
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, and the judicial precedent settled
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is
disposed of. Petitioner is relegated to approach the learned Appellate Court
concerned and file an appropriate application before it, which would be
decided, by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) in this regard within one month
from the date of filing of the application. The directions given in the order
dated 03.07.2024 by learned Appellate Court to the extent of depositing 20%
of compensation amount on or before the date fixed and in case he fails to
deposit the same, the bail granted to the accused shall be deemed to have
been cancelled, is set aside. The petitioner will remain on bail as granted by
the appellate Court till the abovesaid application is decided by the appellate
Court in view of the directions as given above.
5. Disposed of accordingly.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
20.09.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
