Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kishan vs The District Food Civil Supplies And ... on 18 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007152
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 18.01.2025
RAM KISHAN
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE DISTRICT FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
CONTROLLER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present : Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been
preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated
06.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-10)
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in CRA No.5 of
2023 dated 06.01.2023 titled as 'Ram Kishan Vs. DFCSCACEDFSCK etc',
which is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated
07.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2022 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, in NACT No.1204/2017, vide
which, while deciding the application for suspension of sentence, the
petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within
60 days as a condition for suspension of sentence.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007152
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned
order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated
06.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) is illegal and arbitrary in nature having been
passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He inter
alia contends that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2022 and order of sentence dated
09.12.2022 (Annexure P-1), the learned Appellate Court has erroneously
directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60
days as a condition for grant of suspension of sentence. He contends that this
has been done without considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2023 (10) SCC 446; to the effect that imposition
of the condition of 20% for deposit of compensation amount is not an
absolute rule and the learned Appellate Court should have considered the
exceptional circumstances for waiving of the said condition to which no
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before imposing the aforesaid
condition. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated
06.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and also the order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure
P-10), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking re-
consideration of the order to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was
dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.
3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that a criminal
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by
the respondent against the petitioner, wherein he was summoned to face trial
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007152
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M) -3-
on the allegations that in discharge of his existing liability petitioner had
issued 2 cheques amounting to ₹50,00,000/- each to the respondent and on
presentation, the same was dishonoured by the Bank with the remarks
"funds insufficient". After conclusion of trial, learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Kurukshetra, convicted the petitioner vide judgment of conviction
dated 07.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-1)
and aggrieved by the same the petitioner had filed the appeal bearing
No.CRA-5-2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra. The learned Appellate Court while admitting the appeal
ordered suspension of sentence but with the condition that the petitioner will
deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days.
4. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, it is
worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra) had observed 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007152
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M) -4-
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."
5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court, would reveal that the learned Appellate Court was required to
consider as to whether the present case of the petitioner falls in the exception
or not. Further it has also been specifically laid down that it was erroneous
premise that the deposit of minimum of 20% of the amount is an absolute
rule which does not accommodate any exception.
6. The learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order
dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) has not discussed or considered as to
whether the case of the petitioner falls within the exception or not and has
mechanically imposed 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for
suspension of sentence of the petitioner.
7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure
P-3) as well as order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, are hereby set aside to the extent of
imposition of condition qua deposit of 20% of the compensation amount and
the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court to re-examine
the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions
regarding the exceptional circumstances, which warrants waiver of the
requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount in the light of
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case
(supra).
8. However, any observation made above shall not be construed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007152
CRM-M-2558-2025 (O&M) -5-
as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and is only meant for the
purpose of decision of present petition.
9. The instant petition is disposed of, in above terms.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
18.01.2025
S.Sharma(syr)
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
