Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kusum Lata Singla vs M/S Gupta Filling Station And Anr on 26 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127798
CRM-M-48264-2024 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48264-2024
Date of decision: 26.09.2024
Kusum Lata Singla ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Gupta Filling Station and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for
Mr. Sushil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 02.04.2024
passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in CRA-189-
2024 titled as Kusum Lata Singla Vs. M/s Gupta Filling Station whereby the
sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act has been suspended
subject to condition to deposit 20% amount of the compensation awarded by
the trial Court within next 60 days and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the
said Court whereby the earlier order dated 02.04.2024 was vacated to the
extent of grant of suspension of sentence, on account of failure of the
petitioner to deposit the requisite amount within stipulated period.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1
filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner
wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment and to pay compensation worth Rs.3,00,000/- under Section
138 NI Act vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred
appeal against the said judgment and order and the Appellate Court vide
order dated 02.04.2024 has entertained the appeal and also disposed of
application seeking suspension of sentence with direction to the petitioner to
deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial
Court, within 60 days in the learned trial Court, as per provisions contained
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127798
CRM-M-48264-2024 [2]
in Section 148 of the NI Act, failing which the order of suspension of
sentence shall be deemed to be vacated in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal &
Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi & Anr. 2020(1) SCC (Cri.) 506. It is further
submitted that the appellate Court vide its subsequent order dated
15.07.2024 vacated the earlier order dated 02.04.2024 and issued non
bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right
perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation
in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons and such a condition
is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of 2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos.
4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023, wherein it was
observed as follows:-
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation
should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally,
Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of
deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where
the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of
20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to
deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception
can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore,
when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389
of the Cr.P.C. of an petitioner who has been convicted for
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. 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, the
reasons for coming to the said 4 conclusion must be recorded."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127798
CRM-M-48264-2024 [3]
4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the law laid
down in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) is further reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and Another having Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2024, decided
on 15.03.2024.
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the
impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and is
of the view that the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 to the extent whereby
petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded
by trial Court is not passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the
afore-stated settled position of law. While passing the said direction, the
Appellate Court has not referred to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court (supra) and no reason is given by the said Court while issuing
aforesaid direction dated 02.04.2024.
6. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order dated 02.04.2024
to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of compensation
amount awarded by the trial Court has been imposed for the purpose of
suspension of sentence and subsequent order dated 15.07.2024 are hereby
set aside. The Appellate Court is directed to re-consider the matter in issue,
after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then to pass
appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra) and Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava's case (supra) and
till then not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. The petitioner
is directed to appear before the Appellate Court on the next date fixed in the
appeal.
7. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent No.1. However, if respondent No.1 feels
dis-satisfied with this order, it may move an application to recall the same.
26.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
