Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fortune Graphics Limited Through Its ... vs M/S R.K. Fabrics on 28 January, 2025
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012196
CRM-M-4287-2025 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4287-2025
Date of decision: 28.01.2025
Fortune Graphics Ltd. and another ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s R.K. Fabrics ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS has
been filed for setting aside of order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed
by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in CRA-13842/2024
titled as Fortune Graphics Limited and another Vs. M/s R.K. Fabrics
whereby the sentence of the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act has been suspended subject to the condition to deposit 20%
of cheque amount, within a period of one month.
2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent filed
criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioners
wherein on conclusion of trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced
to RI for a period of one year under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment and
order dated 16.09.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Ludhiana. Being aggrieved, petitioners have preferred an appeal against the
said judgment and order and the Appellate Court vide order dated
18.10.2024 has admitted the appeal and also disposed of application seeking
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012196
CRM-M-4287-2025 [2]
suspension of sentence with direction to the petitioners to deposit 20% of
the cheque amount, as per provision of Section 148 of the NI Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further 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
in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons 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 Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 04.09.2023, wherein it was
observed as 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 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 petitioner 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 4 conclusion must be recorded."
4. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that
proceeding against petitioner No.1 are initiated under Section 7 of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and NCLT, New Delhi has passed order
Annexure P-4 dated 04.05.2018 and appointed interim resolution
professional. That even on this ground, the impugned order is not
sustainable. In this context counsel for petitioners has referred to decision of
Madras High Court in Crl.O.P. No.947-2024 C.R.Bala Subramanian Vs.
P.Eswaramoorti dated 12.01.2024
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and gone through the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012196
CRM-M-4287-2025 [3]
impugned order and the case law referred by counsel for the petitioner and
is of the view that the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 to the extent
whereby petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount is not
passed by the Appellate Court in accordance with the settled position of
law, as discussed above. While passing the said direction, the Appellate
Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) and no reason is given by the said Court
while issuing aforesaid directions. In the light of the ratio laid down in
Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), coupled with the order Annexure P-4
passed by NCLT, Delhi, the appellate Court was required to consider
whether the case of the petitioner falls under exception or not.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
18.10.2024 to the extent whereby the condition of depositing of 20% of
cheque amount for the purpose of suspension of sentence, is hereby set
aside. The Appellate Court is directed to re-consider the same after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then to pass appropriate order
in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra)
and order Annexure P-4 passed by NCLT, New Delhi and till then not to
take any coercive action against the petitioners. The petitioners are directed
to appear before the Appellate Court on the next date fixed in the appeal.
7. Keeping in view the nature of order being passed, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent. However, if he feels dis-satisfied with
this order, he may move an application to recall the same.
28.01.2025 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
