[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejpal vs Devi Ram on 24 December, 2025
CRM-M-18736-2025 & 08 connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. Cases No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
No.
01 CRM-M-18736-2025 PAWAN GOYAL ANSHUL GOYAL
02 CRM-M-47266-2025 KULDEEP THE
SINGH MAHENDERGARH
CENTRAL
COOPERATIVE
BANK LTD
03 CRM-M-47186-2025 SANTOKH NITIN SELHI AND
(O&M) SINGH ANR
04 CRM-M-40531-2025 GAURAV DANVIR
KUMAR JHA
05 CRM-M-31715-2025 MANOJ KUMAR STATE OF
JAIN HARYANA AND
ANOTHER
06 CRM-M-38520-2025 TEJPAL DEVI RAM
07 CRM-M-42090-2024 RATTAN M/S JAGDAMBA
KUMAR GUPTA SPINNING AND
WEAVING MILLS
AND ANR
08 CRM-M-16276-2025 RAJWINDER PRITPAL SINGH
SINGH AND ANR
09 CRM-M-17841-2025 JASHAN @ SHAM SINGH
(O&M) JASHAN
KUMAR
1. Date when Order was reserved 23.12.2025
2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 24.12.2025
3. Date of uploading Order 24.12.2025
4. Whether operative part or full Order FULL
is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full NOT APPLICABLE
order, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Rythem Bajaj, Advocate (in CRM-M-16276-2025)
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate (in CRM-M-17841-2025)
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 26-12-2025 00:37:14 :::
CRM-M-18736-2025 & 08 connected cases 2
Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocate,
for Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate (in CRM-M-18736-2025)
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate (in CRM-M-38520-2025)
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate (in CRM-M-42090-2024)
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, and
for the respondent(s).
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This common order would decide aforementioned nine
petitions, as the primary issue involved therein is same.
2. These petitions, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, have
been filed by the petitioner(s) assailing the order(s) passed by the
concerned Appellate Court(s) while deciding the application(s) for
suspension of sentence, filed by the petitioner(s) alongwith the appeal(s)
preferred by them against the judgement of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court, while deciding complaints under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI
Act').
In all the cases, respective Appellate Court(s), while
allowing the application(s) and suspending the sentence during pendency
of the appeal(s), subjected the appellant(s)/petitioners herein to deposit
20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the Trial Court, within
stipulated time. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner(s) have approached this
Court by filing the aforementioned petitions.
3. For the sake of brevity, the basic details of these three
petitions have been summed up in tabular form, as under:-
(i) CRM-M-18736-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT/1123/2019, under Section 138
of the NI Act.
2. Judgment of conviction 07.02.2025, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-102-2025, dated 11.03.2025
4. Date of impugned order 11.03.2025, passed by Additional
2 of 11
Sessions Judge-III, Faridabad
(Appellate Court)
(ii) CRM-M-47266-2025:-
1. Complaint No. 98 of 2018, under Sections 138 to 142
of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 26.05.2025, passed by Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh
(Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-198-2025, dated 11.06.2025
4. Date of impugned order 11.06.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Narnaul (Appellate
Court)
(iii) CRM-M-47186-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-317-2020, under Section 138 of
the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 15.04.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar (Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-64-2024, dated 13.05.2024
4. Date of impugned order 14.05.2024 & 21.07.2025, passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar (Appellate Court)
(iv) CRM-M-40531-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-192-2020, under Section
138/142 of the NI Act read with Section
420 IPC
2. Judgment of conviction 24.03.2025, passed by Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Hodal, District
Palwal (Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-97-2025, dated 24.04.2025
4. Date of impugned order 24.04.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Palwal (Appellate
Court)
(v) CRM-M-31715-2025:-
1. Complaint No. RBT/403/2019, under Section 138 of
the NI Act
3 of 11
2. Judgment of conviction 03.04.2025, passed by Special Railway
Magistrate, Haryana-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-153-2025, dated 01.05.2025
4. Date of impugned order 01.05.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Ambala (Appellate
Court)
(vi) CRM-M-38520-2025:-
1. Complaint No. RBT/578/2022, CIS No.
NACT/2502/2018, under Section
138/142 of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 07.04.2025, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-145-2025, dated 05.05.2025
4. Date of impugned order 08.05.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Panipat (Appellate Court)
(vii) CRM-M-42090-2024:-
1. Complaint No. COMA-13031-2017, under Section 138
of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 16.01.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-145-2024, dated 14.02.2024
4. Date of impugned order 14.02.2024, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Appellate
Court)
(viii) CRM-M-16276-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-80-2020, under Section 138 read
with Section 142 of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 29.11.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, District
Fazilka (Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-409-2024, dated 18.12.2024
4. Date of impugned order 18.12.2024, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fazilka (Appellate
4 of 11
Court)
(ix) CRM-M-17841-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-387-2021, under Section 138 of
the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC
2. Judgment of conviction 29.11.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, District
Fazilka (Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-414-2024, dated 19.12.2024
4. Date of impugned order 19.12.2024, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fazilka (Appellate
Court)
4. In matters of M/s Coromandel International Limited v.
Shri Ambica Sales Corporation (CRM-M-7799-2025), and M/s
Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambalica Agro Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. (CRM-M-8498-2025), the petitioner company, i.e. M/s
Coromandel International Limited, which was the complainant before the
Trial Court, had assailed the order(s) dated 06.03.2024, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, primarily on the ground that
concession of suspension of sentence granted in favour of the
respondent(s) therein, is liable to be vacated because the respondent(s)
failed to comply with the condition of deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, within the stipulated
period of 60 days, i.e. from the date of order(s) dated 06.03.2024. In the
alternative, prayer was made for directing the respondent(s) to deposit the
same.
5. While dealing with the aforesaid two petitions filed by M/s
Coromandel International Limited, after noticing relevant provisions of
the NI Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, judgments of this Court (Punjab
and Haryana High Court), and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court found that in none of the cases, the implication of non-
payment of the ordered amount under Section 148 of the NI Act vis-a-vis
the right of suspension of sentence, with the parameters as speculated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 446 : Law
5 of 11
Finder Doc Id # 2313888 [SC, D/d. 04.09.2023] and Muskan
Enterprises and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC
Online SC 4107 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2680202 [SC, D/d.
19.12.2024], was considered by Single Benches of this Court or the
Hon'ble Apex Court. This Court also found that there were divergent
view of different Co-ordinate Benches.
6. After recording reasons in detail, this Court, vide order dated
08.04.2025, passed in CRM-M-7799-2025 (supra) and CRM-M-8498-
2025 (supra) referred the matter to a Larger Bench, for answer on the
following questions of law:-
"(a) Whether imposition of condition to deposit 20% of
the compensation amount awarded by the Trial
Court, is sustainable or not, while deciding the
application for suspension of sentence in an appeal,
when the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is still awaiting confirmation?
(b) Whether the right of the convict-appellant being on
bail in pending appeal, can be subjected to the
compliance of direction to pay 20% of the
compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI
Act?
(c) Whether the right of bail can be taken away by the
Appellate Court, where final adjudication of the
appeal is pending, due to non-compliance of the
direction to pay 20% of the compensation amount
under Section 148 of the NI Act, for any justifiable
or un-justifiable reason, as discussed in the cases of
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises
(supra)?
(d) Whether it is a pre-condition to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court,
for getting an appeal decided?"
7. The aforementioned questions were then considered and
answered by the Larger Bench/Division Bench (Anoop Chitkara, J. and
Sanjay Vashisth, J.) of this Court, vide detailed order dated 24.09.2025,
passed in the case of M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri
Ambica Sales Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 2783918 : 2025 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 490.
6 of 11
In para Nos. 36, 40, 41, 51, 52, and 57 of the order dated
24.09.2025 (supra), the Larger Bench/Division Bench firstly answered
the four questions individually. For the sake of ready reference, the
questions and the answers given are being extracted, in juxtapose, as
under:-
Question Answer
(a) Whether imposition of "36. After analyzing the
condition to deposit 20% of statutory provision vis-à-vis the
the compensation amount judicial precedents referred to above,
awarded by the Trial Court, the answer to the first proposition is
is sustainable or not, while that the imposition of condition to
deciding the application for deposit 20% of the compensation
suspension of sentence in an amount awarded by the Trial Court,
appeal, when the judgment is sustainable, while deciding the
of conviction and order of application for suspension of
sentence is still awaiting sentence in an appeal, when the
confirmation? judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is still awaiting
confirmation."
(b) Whether the right of the "40. Answer to the second
convict-appellant being on proposition was once addressed by
bail in pending appeal, can Surinder Singh Deswal supra
be subjected to the [Second case], where the Hon'ble
compliance of direction to Supreme Court held that when an
pay 20% of the Appellate Court suspends the
compensation amount under sentence on a condition, then the
Section 148 of the NI Act? failure to comply with that condition
adversely affects the continuation of
the suspension.
41. The Appellate Court that
has suspended the sentence on a
condition, after observing non-
compliance, could reasonably hold
that the suspension stood vacated due
to the non-compliance, and it is the
responsibility of the said Appellate
Court, which granted the suspension,
to consider the non-compliance and
make an appropriate decision.
Nonetheless, non-compliance with the
suspension condition is enough to
declare that the suspension has been
vacated."
(c) Whether the right of bail "51. In the light of the judicial
can be taken away by the precedents mentioned above, the
7 of 11
Appellate Court, where final answer to the third proposition is that
adjudication of the appeal is the right of bail cannot be taken away
pending, due to non- by the Appellate Court, where final
compliance of the direction adjudication of the appeal is pending,
to pay 20% of the due to non-compliance with the
compensation amount under direction of paying 20% of the
Section 148 of the NI Act, compensation amount under Section
for any justifiable or un- 148 of the NI Act. Whenever an
justifiable reason, as Appellate Court directs a deposit
discussed in the cases of under Section 148 of the NI Act and
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) imposes conditions on the suspension
and Muskan Enterprises of sentence, such conditions must be
(supra)? just conditions.
52. Here it requires to be
understood that once the issue
regarding deposit of 20% of the
compensation or fine amount,
payable under Section 148 of NI Act,
is decided by the concerned Appellate
Court by following the spirit of the
observations made in the judgments
of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and
Muskan Enterprises (supra), and
condition, if any, is imposed while
suspending the sentence, the same
would be deemed to be just and fair,
and undoubtedly such condition
requires its fulfillment at the end of
the appellant, who seeks suspension
of sentence."
(d) Whether it is a pre-condition "57. From the judgments of
to deposit 20% of the Noor Mohammed (supra) and Vijay
compensation amount D. Salvi (supra), it is clear that non-
awarded by the Trial Court, deposit of 20% of the compensation
for getting an appeal or fine amount would not disentitle
decided? the accused from availing any of his
substantive rights, including the right
of appeal. The case of Vijay D. Salvi
(supra) clearly answers the fourth
proposition of law. Thus, to get the
appeal decided, there cannot be any
precondition for depositing the
amount ordered under Section 148 of
the NI Act by the Appellate Court.
The fourth question is answered
accordingly."
8 of 11
8. It was also found that all the aforementioned four questions
are interconnected and interwoven, thus, the Larger Bench/Division
Bench has also given cumulative answers in para Nos. 59 to 76 of the
order dated 24.09.2025 (supra), and after bare reading thereof, it can be
summarized as under:-
The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is bailable, and after
summoning of the accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the
NI Act, bail is a right subject to the furnishing of bonds.
In the event of conviction and sentence, fine, and compensation, it
is for the convict to decide whether to undergo the sentence or to
challenge it before the Appellate Court by filing an Appeal.
In the cases of juristic persons, these can only be fined, and in the
absence of a substantive sentence of imprisonment, there is no
need for these entities to seek suspension of sentence.
Section 148 of the NI Act neither restricts right of the convict to
challenge the conviction, sentence, or compensation by filing an
appeal, nor does it permit the Appellate Court to impose any
prerequisites for the appeal to be admitted or decided.
Section 148 of the NI Act, due to its non-compliance, does not
explicitly prohibit the suspension of sentence or the hearing of the
appeal.
Neither Section 148 nor any other provision of the NI Act
prescribes any provisions for the suspension of sentence.
Therefore, Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 shall apply.
Neither Section 148 of the NI Act nor Section 430 of the BNSS,
2023 places any specific restrictions on suspension of sentence.
Instead, Section 430 of the BNSS has carved out a separate, most
lenient category, and in cases where the sentence prescribed is up
to three years of imprisonment, or when the offences in which an
accused is convicted are bailable offences, the sentence is
suspended by the trial Court/convicting Court.
The very purpose of Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, which
corresponds to Section 389 Cr.P.C., is to restore the liberty
curtailed post-conviction until the decision of the appeal
challenging such conviction and sentence.
Appellate Court assumes the jurisdiction to order a deposit under
Section 148 of the NI Act only if the convict files an appeal before
it, challenging the conviction and sentence, and the jurisdiction
stays only during the pendency of such an appeal, and jurisdiction
of the Appellate Court would eclipse on the decision of the appeal.
In the absence of specific provision in the language of Section 148
of the NI Act, that in the absence of deposit of 20% of
compensation, neither shall any appeal be entertained nor the
sentence shall be suspended, it shall be re-writing Section 148 of
NI Act and Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, to treat the deposit of
20% as a prerequisite for filing an appeal or for suspending the
sentence.
9 of 11
During pendency of an appeal, the Appellate Court is also
competent to direct a deposit upon the filing of an application by
the complainant.
The words, "(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within
such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by
the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.", used
in Section 148(2) of the NI Act are significant, because sixty days
extendable by another thirty days, are granted to a convict to
deposit only if the appeal is pending, because of the words, "in an
appeal by the drawer against conviction" used in Section 148 of
the NI Act. In case, before the expiry of said period (sixty days +
thirty days), the appeal itself is decided, then the Appellate Court
shall also lose its jurisdiction to order such deposit.
If the appeal is not decided within 60 days, with a possible
extension of 30 days, then the convict must comply with the
directions, if any, to deposit the compensation amount.
When the convict challenges the conviction, sentence, or
compensation by filing an appeal, the requirement to deposit
20% or more of the fine amount or compensation is not an
absolute rule and is subject to exceptions mentioned in Jamboo
Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra), it can be
reduced to below the statutory minimum of 20% or even
waived in exceptional cases by assigning reasons.
When a convict challenges the judgment of conviction by filing an
appeal, then during the pendency of appeal, i.e. if the appeal is not
decided within 60 days, extendable by 30 days, then the convict
might be compelled to deposit the amount as was directed, by
taking recourse to Section 395 BNSS, 2023.
Deposit of a minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule.
Whenever the deposits are expensive than the liberty, and the
Appellate Courts are convinced that the convicts are not in a
position to deposit and likely to forego their liberty even when the
first appeal is yet to be decided, the Appellate Courts must make
efforts to prioritize hearing appeals filed against the convictions
under Section 148 NI Act and decide those preferably within sixty
days of filing, and not later than ninety days, which clearly aligns
with the legislators' intentions. However, the time of sixty days
should be extended to the extent to which the decision of the
appeal is delayed because of the complainant.
9. In view above, matters in hand are required to be sent back
to the respective Appellate Courts, for decision afresh on the
application(s) for suspension of sentence of the appellant(s)/petitioner(s)
herein, in consonance with the order dated 24.09.2025, passed by the
Larger Bench/Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s
Coromandel International Limited (supra).
10 of 11
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. The said exercise shall be undertaken by the Appellate
Court(s) not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order, and after issuing notice(s) to the respective parties.
12. Further, it is directed that till the time application for
suspension of sentence is decided afresh, the condition of deposit of 20%
of the compensation amount, as directed by the Appellate Court in its
earlier order, shall remain inoperative, and the bail shall not be cancelled
in consequence thereof.
13. In case the Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the
matter, comes to the conclusion that the deposits are expensive than the
liberty, and the convict is not in a position to deposit and likely to forego
his liberty even when the first appeal is yet to be decided, the Appellate
Court must make efforts to prioritize hearing appeal filed against the
conviction under Section of the 148 NI Act and decide the same
preferably within next sixty days of passing of fresh order, and not later
than ninety days, which clearly aligns with the legislators' intentions.
However, the time of sixty days should be extended to the extent to
which the decision of the appeal is delayed because of the complainant.
14. Registry is directed to transmit copy of this order to the
respective Appellate Court (as detailed in para No. 3 above) forthwith for
compliance.
15. These petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
16. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
December 24, 2025
Pkapoor
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
11 of 11
