Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs M/S Shri Ram Transport Finance Co Ltd And ... on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007745
CRM-M No.3083 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
137
CRM-M No.3083 of 2025
Date of decision: 20.01.2025
Baldev Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing of order
dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fazilka, vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of
the compensation amount. Further prayer has been made to stay the
operation of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024, during the pendency
of the present petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
complainant/respondent is a non-banking finance company engaged in
financing, leasing, and hire purchase. The petitioner approached the
complainant/respondent for a loan to finance a vehicle i.e. Tata LPS
4018-1, under registration No.PB-03P-9972 for personal use. The
complainant advanced a loan of Rs.5 Lac to the petitioner. However, the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007745
petitioner defaulted on the repayment of installments, violating the
terms of the loan agreement. In discharge of his liability, the petitioner
issued 04 cheques to the complainant, drawn on his account at Punjab
National Bank, Danewala, Malout, as follows:
1. Cheque No. 641478 dated 24.09.2019 for Rs. 5,00,000/-
2. Cheque No. 641479 dated 03.10.2019 for Rs. 2,34,167/-
3. Cheque No. 641480 dated 14.10.2019 for Rs. 2,34,167/-
4. Cheque No. 641481 dated 16.10.2019 for Rs. 2,34,167/-
The complainant presented the cheques, but they were
dishonored and the petitioner's banker sent a memo dated 16.10.2019
with remarks indicating the cheques were dishonored. As a result, the
petitioner failed to repay the cheque amounts and the outstanding loan
amount. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused/petitioner
on 23.10.2019, but the petitioner did not make the payment within the
notice period. Consequently, a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the NI Act') (Annexure P-1)
was filed against the accused/petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was
summoned and thereafter, he was released on bail and later on, he was
convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, vide
judgment dated 19.09.2024 and he was sentenced to undergo RI for a
period of 02 years and compensation of equivalent to the cheque
amount and in default of payment to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 03 months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
an appeal against the said order dated 19.09.2024, which stands
admitted and is pending adjudication before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fazilka, however, vide impugned order dated
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007745
16.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was directed to deposit 20%
of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days. Against the said
order (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
while allowing the application of the petitioner seeking suspension of
sentence, imposition of condition to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount is unjust and arbitrary and against the proposition of law settled
in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari Vs. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and
others 2013 (12) SCALE 611, wherein it is held that deposit of
minimum 20% of the compensation amount is not an absolute rule. It is
further contended that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount
cannot be a condition precedent, while allowing bail to the petitioner
and the learned Appellate Court ought to have considered the
exceptional circumstances for waiving off the said condition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the learned Appellate
Court has passed the impugned order without considering the
exceptional circumstances qua imposition of condition of deposit of
20% of the compensation amount.
5. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), speaking through Justice Abhay S.
Oka has held as under:-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007745
"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."
6. In view of the settled law, the learned Lower Appellate
Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the
exception or not. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.10.2024
is set aside to the extent of imposition of condition of depositing 20% of
the compensation amount and the matter is remanded back to the
learned Lower 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 awarded by the learned trial Court,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007745
in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra).
7. The instant petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
20.01.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
