Alok Garg vs M/S National Diesel Works And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1057 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1057 P&H
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Alok Garg vs M/S National Diesel Works And Anr on 18 January, 2025

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007033




111        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-2632-2025
                                                 Date of decision: 18.01.2025

ALOK GARG
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                          V/S

M/S NATIONAL DIESEL WORKS AND ANOTHER
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:     Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate for
             Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
                   ****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for

setting aside of order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P P-3) passed by the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in an appeal CRA-330 of 2024

titled as 'Alok Garg vs. M/s National Deisel Works' against the judgment dated

20.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in

NACT-5016 5016 of 2017, 2017 whereby, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended

conditionally by imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as

compensation within 60 days.

2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred referred as N.I. Act) has been initiated

by the complainant with the submissions that it operates a firm under the name

and style of M/s. National Diesel Works, NIT Faridabad, which specializes in

Kriloskar Cummins Caterpillar marine engines, generator sets, ooverhauling, verhauling,

maintenance and servicing contract, fuel pump and injector repair services on a

hire basis. Mr. Chander Sein is the proprietor of the firm and is fully familiar

with the facts of the case and is authorized to sign on behalf of the firm. The

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007033

accused used company, dealing in export garments, was in need of a DG set on a

rental basis, to meet its production deadlines, deadlines, due to frequent power cuts in

Faridabad. In response to this demand, the complainant supplied old DG sets to

the accused company on various various dates and for different months, documented

through memos/bills, as mentioned in the complaint. To settle the payments for

these supplied DG sets, the accused accused individuals (including the petitioner

herein) issued 17 cheques for varying amounts and dates iin n favour of the

complainant. The details of three specific specific cheques bearing numbers 294938

dated 20.03.2013 for Rs.61,269/-,, 294939 dated 20.03.2013 for Rs.56,163/--

and 294940 dated 20.03.2013 for Rs.56,163/- drawn on HSBC Ltd., New Delhi

out of the aforementioned aforementioned seventeen, are provided in the complaint. The

accused including the petitioner, petitioner had allocated the above above-said said work to the

complainant omplainant through a purchase order, which is fully detailed and described in

Paragraph 4 of the complaint. At the time of iss issuing uing the cheques, all the

accused persons were present and assured the complainant that the above above--

mentioned three cheques would be honoured upon presentation in the bank.

However, when the three cheques were presented in the bank for encashment,

were dishonored nored and returned with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" as per the

memos dated 26.03.2013. The complainant got issued legal notice dated

23.04.2013 to the accused and the period as provided under the same, has also

passed, but accused have not paid the amount amount assured under the cheques.

Hence, this complaint.

3. Vide ide judgment and order dated 20/ 20/25.09.2024 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, the petitioner and co co-accused accused were

convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment fo for a period of 02

months for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007033

Instruments Act and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,00,000/-.. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said

judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Faridabad.. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated

21.10.2024, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20%

of the compensation amount within 60 days of passing of the order.

4. 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 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 boo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial

Development Corporation Ltd. and others, others, decided on 04.09.2023. Speaking

through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as follows:

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 orr 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 pet petitioner itioner 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 off 20% of the fine/compensation

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007033

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. Having heard learned counsel for the petitione petitionerr and after perusing

the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) (supra), the lower Appellate Court

was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not.

The impugned order dated 21.10.2024, whereby, the condition of depositing

20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of

sentence upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate

Court is directed to re-examine re examine the case after granting an opportunity to the

petitioner to make submissions regarding 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 learned trial Court.

6. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court

with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light