[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Gir vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
147 CRM-M-69923-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.12.2025
Date of Uploading: 11.12.2025
Charan Gir
....Petitioner(s)
V/s
State of Punjab and another
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 19.03.2024
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to
the extent, that the execution of sentence and order appealed against has
been suspended qua petitioner (herein) subject to depositing of 20% of the
amount of compensation. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads
thus:
"Heard. Along with main appeal, an application under section 389
Cr.P.C for suspending the sentence of imprisonment and releasing the
applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal has also been filed.
Heard. Appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Section 138 of N.L. Act. The appellant has been sentenced to
undergo R.1. for the period not exceeding three years. As the disposal of
the appeal is likely to take time, hence the sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the appellant/accused is suspended till the decision of the
appeal, subject to furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate within a period of 15 days from today. Accused is directed to
appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing. Bail bonds
after acceptance and attestation shall be transmitted to this Court.
1 of 6
CRM-M-69923-2025
Page |2
Perusal of the judgment dated 20.02.2024 further reveals that the
accused is directed pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- to the
complainant. Therefore, in the light of the amended provision of Section
148 of the NI Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.
4948-2975/2019 Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal Versus
Virender Gandhi decided on 29.05.2019, the appellant is directed to
deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation awarded by the trial
Court within 60 days from today.
If the accused fails to pay the 20% of total compensation amount
within the stipulated period, the order of suspension shall automatically
stands vacated.
Let, notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent for
03.09.2024."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation
amount as awarded by the trial Court on account of financial difficulty.
Learned counsel has further argued that due and requisite opportunity was
not afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated
19.03.2024 wherein condition for deposit of 20% of the amount of the
compensation has been stipulated by the learned Sessions Court. Learned
counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of
20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial
Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of
the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be
quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of
compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paper-book.
4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced
through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the
deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as
2 of 6
CRM-M-69923-2025
Page |3
a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour
cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged
litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving
compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person's right to
appeal and the complainant's right to speedy justice. The amount deposited
can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide
timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari
vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10)
SCC 446; relevant whereof reads as under:
"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 accused 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 conclusion must be
recorded.
8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original
complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the
High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception
may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum
20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer
was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to
consider the said plea.
9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies
under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he
3 of 6
CRM-M-69923-2025
Page |4
normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without
any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the
appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception
or not."
5. The convict bears the onus of demonstrating exceptional
circumstances to persuade the appellate court to waive the mandatory
deposit of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Considering the legislative intent behind the provision, which seeks to
expedite justice and alleviate the complainant's hardship due to prolonged
litigation, it is generally appropriate for the appellate court to impose this
condition when an appeal is filed against a conviction under Section 138.
Such a requirement ensures that the complainant is not unjustly deprived of
compensation while safeguarding the appellate process from frivolous or
dilatory tactics. Under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the
requirement to deposit the compensation amount as a condition for appeal is
generally mandatory, emphasizing its status as a rule.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Muskan
Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, has held
thus:
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that
normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards
requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit
depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so
because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on
its forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit
in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is
exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit,
has to be conceded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
4 of 6
CRM-M-69923-2025
Page |5
Ergo, the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan
Enterprises (supra) enunciates that the appellate Court holds the discretion
to waive this condition only in exceptional circumstances. Such
circumstances must be demonstrated through compelling and substantiated
material provided by the appellant-convict. Absent such cogent material, it
would be in appropriate for appellate Court to impose such condition. This
approach ensures adherence to the legislative intent, discouraging frivolous
appeals and protecting the interests of the complainant.
5.1. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments in the case of
Jamboo Bhandari case (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra), no ground
is made out to quash/modify the condition imposed vide the impugned order
whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of the amount of the
compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The ground
pleaded by the petitioner that he is facing financial difficulty cannot be said
to be a ground sufficient enough for carving out an exception from the
mandate contained in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
It also cannot be said, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that
imposition of the condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of
compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate can be said to be
unjust or would amount to effectively taking away the right of appeal of
petitioner. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity nay
legal infirmity calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the
petition in hand is dismissed.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
5 of 6
CRM-M-69923-2025
Page |6
7. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the appeal pending before the learned Sessions
Court.
(SUMEET GOEL)
December 11, 2025 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
