[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navdeep Sharma vs Krishan Singh on 26 December, 2025
CRM-M-28757-2025 & 05 connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. Cases No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
No.
01 CRM-M-28757-2025 V.K. TEJ VEER AND
CONSTRUCTION ANOTHER
AND ANOTHER
02 CRM-M-38097-2025 HARVINDER SUSHIL KUMAR
SINGH SAGGU AND ANOTHER
03 CRM-M-56991-2025 DHARAM SINGH SUMIT SINGLA
04 CRM-M-8777-2025 NAVDEEP KRISHAN SINGH
SHARMA
05 CRM-M-42330-2025 ATUL GOYAL MAHI PAL AND
ANOTHER
06 CRM-M-61537-2025 RAGHUVIR RAJYOG
ALIAS
RAGHUBIR
SINGH
1. Date when Order was reserved 23.12.2025
2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 26.12.2025
3. Date of uploading Order 26.12.2025
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.
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate
(in CRM-M-8777-2025)
Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate,
for Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Advocate
(in CRM-M-28757-2025)
Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate
(in CRM-M-56991-2025)
for the petitioner(s).
For the respondent(s): Mr. Sourav Goyal, Advocate
(in CRM-M-38097-2025)
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, and
Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate
(in CRM-M-56991-2025)
1 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 04:22:01 :::
CRM-M-28757-2025 & 05 connected cases 2
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This common order would decide aforementioned six
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-28757-2025:-
1. Complaint No. 989 of 2021, CIS No.
NACT/2268/2021, under Section 138
of the NI Act.
2. Judgment of conviction 22.01.2025, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar (Trial Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-58-2025
4. Date of impugned order 18.02.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar (Appellate Court)
The relevant portion of the impugned order dated
18.02.2025, reads as under:-
" Appellant-accused suffered a statement that he
will pay the 20% of total compensation amount of Rs. 11
lacs in the Court on the next date of hearing and in case of
not depositing said amount, he shall have no objection if
2 of 19
sentence imposed by learned Trial Court is executed against
him. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit the 20% of
compensation of the amount of Rs. 11 lacs in the Court on
the next date of hearing. It is hereby made clear that the
said amount shall be released subject to the decision of the
appeal."
(ii) CRM-M-38097-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-197-2020, under Sections 138 of
the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 25.04.2025, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-244-2025
4. Date of impugned order 28.05.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur (Appellate
Court)
The relevant portion of the impugned order dated
28.05.2025, reads as under:-
" Perusal of judgment dated 25.04.2025 also
reveals that the appellant was directed to pay an amount of
Rs. 5,25,000/- as compensation. In the view of the provisions
of Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in the light
of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Deswal @
Col. S.S.Deswal Vs. Virender Gandhi 2020 INSC 21, the
appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the total amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court within 60
days from today. It is made clear that on failure of the
appellant to make the payment of 20% of the compensation
amount within the stipulated period, the order of suspension
of sentence shall be automatically vacated. The appellant is
directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation
before the learned Trial Court, failing which the Trial Court
should initiate the recovery proceedings for recovery of the
amount of compensation.
In view of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial
Corporation Limited 2024 (1) SCC (Cri.) 90, the appellant
has been given an opportunity of hearing and has been
heard in presence of his counsel on the question of deposit
of compensation amount. Separate statement of appellant
has been recorded to this effect. (there are no exceptional
3 of 19
circumstances made out to dispense with the payment of
compensation amount.)"
Before passing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2025,
learned Appellate Court afforded an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner on the question of deposit of compensation amount, and also
recorded his separate statement dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-4 attached
with this petition), wherein the Harvinder Singh Saggu (petitioner herein)
deposed as under:-
" Stated that I am working as property dealer and
insurance adviser. I am earning Rs.40000/- per month. I
have my own landed house in 285 square yard of area. I
have one four wheeler and one motor-cycle. I am aware
that I have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/-
as compensation. In view of the settled provisions of law, I
am ready to furnish 20% of the compensation amount within
the prescribed period in the learned Trial Court."
(iii) CRM-M-56991-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-457-2018, under Section 138 of
the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 21.11.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-469-2024
4. Date of impugned order 21.08.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur (Appellate
Court)
In this case, initially while suspending the sentence, learned
Appellate Court imposed certain conditions, including deposit of 20% of
the cheque amount, vide order dated 09.12.2024. The said order was
challenged by the petitioner before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High
Court), by filing CRM-M-1493-2025, which was disposed of by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure
4 of 19
P-3), by setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024. The Appellate Court
was directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the
petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances
and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the
requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the Trial
Court.
Thereafter, learned Appellate Court has now passed the
impugned order dated 21.08.2025, again asking the petitioner to deposit
20% compensation amount, because according to the view point of the
Appellate Court the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit
of 'exceptional circumstance'. Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order
dated 21.08.2025, are reproduced as under:-
"5. After hearing rival submissions, it has
transpired that complainant/respondent filed complaint
under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against
accused/appellant and vide judgment dated 21.11.2024,
appellant was convicted and sentenced by learned lower
court. Appellant/accused then preferred instant appeal and
vide order dated 09.12.2024, his sentence was suspended
and he was admitted on bail with the condition to deposit
20% of the cheque amount with the trial court, against
which appellant went before the Hon'ble High Court and
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.01.2025 remanded
back the matter with the directions to decide the matter
afresh as per judgment Jamboo Bhandari's case (Supra).
6. The ratio of judgment Jamboo Bhandari's case
(Supra) provides that if their exists exceptional case, which
warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing
condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, the
concerned court is to consider that way. In the present case,
appellant has taken ground of his financial incapacity, but
which cannot be termed as exceptional circumstance to
uphold his plea, rather which appears genre of a common
plea. There is nothing substantial on record to show that
appellant is having no source of earning or that his position
is like a pauper. Appellant/accused is actively pursuing his
5 of 19
legal recourses in the present matter and even otherwise
mere poverty of person cannot be a ground of exceptional
case to exempt him of condition of 20% compensation,
especially when it has been proved before the trial court that
accused/appellant issued the cheque for his legal liability,
which stood dishonoured and of which he failed to make the
payment to complainant/respondent within stipulated
period. Therefore, instant application having no substance
is ordered to be dismissed and appellant is directed to
deposit the cheque amount to the tune of Rs.20% within 60
days from today with the trial court as per judgment passed
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal appeal No.917- 944 of
2019 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4948-2975, titled
as Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. SS.Deswal vs. Virender
Gandhi, decided on 29.05.2019, failing which the order of
suspension of sentence of appellant/accused shall stand
cancelled."
(iv) CRM-M-8777-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-173-2020, under Section 138 of
the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC
2. Judgment of conviction 03.01.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-42-2024 / CRM-469-2024
4. Date of impugned order 02.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) and
30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka
(Appellate Court)
In this case, while suspending the sentence, vide order dated
02.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), learned Appellate Court imposed the
following condition:-
"2. He will deposit 20% of the fine/compensation
amount as awarded by the Trial Court in favour of the
appellant within 60 days from passing of this order before
the Trial Court and thereafter learned Trail Court will
deposit the said amount in the shape of FDR in any
nationalized bank and same will be disbursed after decision
of the appeal accordingly and in case said 20% of
fine/compensation amount is not deposited by the appellant
within the stipulated period, the bail granted to the
appellant and his suspension of sentence shall automatically
stands cancelled and learned Trial Court shall be at liberty
6 of 19
to proceed against the applicant/appellant in accordance
with the law. Bail bonds after attestation be sent to this
court for record."
When the petitioner failed to deposit 20% of the
fine/compensation amount within the stipulated period of 60 days, he
filed an application, bearing CRM-469-2024, dated 27.05.2024, for grant
of permission to deposit the 20% of compensation amount. However, the
said application has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, vide
order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4), by holding as under:-
" Heard upon application filed on behalf of
applicant/appellant Navdeep Sharma praying for direction
to learned trial Court to permit the applicant/appellant to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount. The application
has been filed on 28.05.2024. Sentence of the
applicant/appellant was ordered to be suspended vide order
dated 02.02.2024 and direction for deposit of 20% amount
was made. Period much more than 90 days has lapsed since
then. As per Section 148 of N.I. Act, required deposit is to be
made within a maximum period of 90 days. As such,
applicant cannot be permitted make a belated deposit at this
stage, in order to avail the benefit of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, application is ordered to be dismissed."
Further, in para No. 6 of this petition, the petitioner has
asserted as under:-
"6. Efforts to Settle the Matter and Approach: The
petitioner respectfully submits that after the dismissal
of the application for extension of time on 30.05.2024,
the petitioner made sincere and earnest efforts to
settle the matter amicably with the
complainant/respondent, Krishan Singh. The
petitioner approached the complainant with a genuine
intention to resolve the dispute and offered to settle
the case amount in full and final. However, despite
the petitioner's best efforts and willingness to resolve
the matter, the complainant remained unwilling to
settle. Left with no other recourse, the petitioner
now approaches this Honorable Court seeking relief
7 of 19
and an extension of time to deposit the 20% of the
awarded amount, as the petitioner is committed to
complying with the Court's order at the earliest
opportunity."
(v) CRM-M-42330-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT-86-2018, under Section 138/142
of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 10.10.2023, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-335-2023, dated 06.11.2023
4. Date of impugned order 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) and
06.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra
(Appellate Court)
In this case, while suspending the sentence, vide order dated
06.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), learned Appellate Court imposed the
following condition:-
" Criminal appeal against the conviction under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is received by
assignment. It be checked and registered.
From the perusal of the grounds of appeal there
are some arguable points and in order to decide this appeal,
it will take time, hence appeal is admitted.
By applying the ratio of law laid down in case
laws titled as Harwinder Singh Vs. Mohan Lal 2022 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 136 wherein it is held that appellant court
has power to impose condition that on non deposit of
fine/compensation, benefit of suspension of sentence would
liable to be automatically/consequently vacated.
Hence, it is ordered that appellant/convict shall
deposit the 20% of total compensation amount within 60
days from today in the lower court and to submit the
documents in this regard to this court and he is also granted
bail under Section 389 (3) of Cr.P.C. on furnishing bail bond
and surety bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the Trial
court within one month and on furnishing of bail bond and
surety bond the trial court shall re-direct the surety bond
and personal bond to this court immediately.
8 of 19
Notice of this appeal be also issued for
09.01.2024 to respondents on filing copy/PF etc.. A copy of
this order be also sent to learned trial Court for
information."
Thereafter, by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State
Industrial Corporation Ltd. And others, (2023) 10 SCC 446 : Law
Finder Doc Id # 2313888 [SC, D/d. 04.09.2023], the petitioner filed an
application before the Appellate Court, for waiver of the condition of
depositing the 20% of the awarded amount. However, the said
application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide impugned
order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), by holding as under:-
" Heard. By way of the present application, the
appellant has sought the relief for giving the reconsideration
on the order whereby he was directed to pay the 20% of the
compensation amount to the respondent-complainant. The
perusal of the case file shows that vide order dated
06.11.2023, the appellant was directed to make the payment
of 20% of the compensation amount to the respondent
complainant. If the appellant was not able to make the
payment of 20% of the compensation amount then, he
should have made the prayer before the Court at the time
when the order dated 06.11.2023 was passed but it has not
been done so by him and now he wants this Court to re-
consider the earlier order whereby he was required to make
the payment of 20% of the compensation amount but if done
so, then it would amount to the alteration/review of the
order dated 06.11.2023 but the alteration/review of the
order is barred under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.( Section 403 of
BNSS) which reads as under:-
"Court not to alter judgment:- Save as otherwise
provided by this Code or by any other law for the time
being in force, no Court, when it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall
alter or review the same except to correct a clerical
or arithmetical error".
9 of 19
So, in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section 403
BNSS), it is observed that since the order regarding the
payment of 20% of the compensation amount has been
passed by this Court, so in view of the bar of Section 362
Cr.P.C. (Section 403 of BNSS) the reconsideration can not
be given and the appellant can not be absolved from the
liability to make the payment of 20% of the compensation
amount as ordered on 06.11.2023. The authority of law
relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant-convict is
certainly distinguishable from the peculiar circumstances of
the present case.
In view of the above said discussion, the present
application is without any merits, the same is hereby
dismissed. Now to come upon 29.05.2025 for depositing the
20% of the compensation amount and arguments on main
appeal as well."
(vi) CRM-M-61537-2025:-
1. Complaint No. NACT/8220/2019, under Section 138
of the NI Act
2. Judgment of conviction 05.08.2025, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram (Trial
Court)
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-466-2025, dated 08.09.2025
4. Date of impugned order 08.09.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram (Appellate
Court)
In this case, while deciding the application for suspension of
sentence of the petitioner herein, the Appellate Court passed the
impugned order dated 08.09.2025, as under:-
"3. Heard on application for suspension of sentence
during pendency of appeal filed by appellant under Section
389 (1) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the appellant was sentenced to
one year simple imprisonment without any specific order to
pay fine. But, besides this, he was also asked to pay an
amount of ₹8,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
As such, the issue comes whether the sentence can be
suspended even if the appellant is not ready to pay the
aforesaid amount. This question is directly considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak
Mahindra Co. Ltd. And another 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal)
636 wherein the question was as to what is the true
10 of 19
interpretation of Section 357 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the provisions
of Negotiable Instruments Act, including power of trial
court to impose compensation and sentence and the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that when an appeal is filed against
conviction besides sentence of imprisonment, the appellate
court can stay payment of amount subject to some
conditions including condition of depositing of part of
compensation which must be reasonable one.
4. Applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts
in hand, it comes out that trial court has directed to
appellant to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000/- to
complainant as compensation. As such, while honouring the
right of appellant-accused to file an appeal, the application
for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal is
allowed and impugned order of sentence along with order to
pay compensation ₹8,00,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
is stayed and suspended till pendency of appeal subject to
the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court.
Subject to further condition that appellant shall deposit 20%
of the total amount of compensation on or before 14.11.2025
with the concerned court or the Duty Magistrate, as the case
may be. In case, the amount is not deposited as directed on
or before 14.11.2025, the order of suspension of sentence
shall automatically stand withdrawn warranting the
appellant/convict to surrender before learned trial court by
the end of the working day of 14.11.2025 to undergo the
sentence so awarded subject to disposal of appeal on merit.
It is apt to mention here that this Court has imposed such
conditions deposit the amount or loose the right to stay on
bail, on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Surender Singh Deswal and others vs. Virender Gandhi
and others Criminal Appeal no. 1936-1963 of 2019,
decided on 08.01.2020. In the quoted case, Hon'ble Apex
Court while upholding the order of learned first Appellate
Court had made following observations:-
(i) When suspension of sentence by the trial court was
granted on a condition, non compliance of the condition had
adverse effct on the continuance of suspension of sentence.
The Court which had suspended the sentence on a condition,
after noticing non-compliance of the condition could very
well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due
to non-compliance. The order of the Additional Sessions
Judge declaring that due to non-compliance of condition of
deposit of twenty five percent of the amount of
compensation, suspension of sentence stands vacated was
11 of 19
well within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and no
error had been committed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
(ii) It was for the Appellate Court who had granted
suspension of sentence to take call on non-compliance and
take appropriate decision. What order was to be passed by
the Appellate Court in such circumstances was for the
Appellate Court to consider and decide. However, non-
compliance of the condition of suspension of sentence was
sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having been
vacated.
Requisite bonds furnished which are accepted and
attested.
It is pertinent to mention here that in CRA-112-2017
arising out of criminal complaint No.76 of 2014 titled as "N
Raju @ Raju Nanoo Vs. M/s Apollo Tyres & Another", the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, directed to
deposit the 20% upto 08.10.2024, failing which the accused-
appellant was directed to face the consequences. The said
order was assailed by the accused-appellant in the Hon'ble
High Court in CRR No. 251 of 2022 (O&M) dated
21.04.2022 titled as "N Raju @ Raju Nanoo Vs. M/s Apollo
Tyres & Another". The Hon'ble High Court has dismissed
the revision. Thereafter, the revisionist-appellant assailed
the order of the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing case
titled as "N Raju @ Raju Nanoo Vs. M/s Apollo Tyres &
Another", S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5937 of 2022 which was
decided on 14.07.2022 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has
dismissed the SLP by observing that "we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the High
Court."
Let, a copy of this order be sent to learned trial court
for information and necessary action in accordance with
law."
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
12 of 19
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
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?
13 of 19
(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.
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, is
appeal, when the judgment sustainable, while deciding the
of conviction and order of application for suspension of sentence
sentence is still awaiting in an appeal, when the judgment of
confirmation? 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 [Second
be subjected to the case], where the Hon'ble Supreme
compliance of direction to Court held that when an Appellate
14 of 19
pay 20% of the Court suspends the sentence on a
compensation amount under condition, then the failure to comply
Section 148 of the NI Act? 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
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
15 of 19
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. 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.
16 of 19
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.
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
17 of 19
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 of above, matters in hand are required to be sent
back to the respective Appellate Courts, for decision afresh 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. 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 a fresh order is passed
by the respective Appellate Court, the condition of deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount, as already directed vide order(s) impugned in
these petitions by the Appellate Court(s), shall remain inoperative, and
the bail shall not be cancelled in consequence thereof.
13. In case the Appellate Court(s), 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(s) 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.
18 of 19
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 26, 2025
Pkapoor
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
19 of 19
