Jagir Singh vs Ajaib Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4884 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagir Singh vs Ajaib Singh on 7 November, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH




118                                                 CRR-2801-2025 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision: 07.11.2025
Jagir Singh
                                                                    ....Petitioner(s)
                                            V/s
Ajaib Singh
                                                                    ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:      Mr. Kehar Singh Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                     *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner

impugning the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to the extent, that the execution of sentence and

order appealed against has been suspended qua petitioner (herein) subject to

depositing of 20% of the amount of compensation. The relevant portion of

the impugned order reads thus:

"Arguments heard on the point of waiving of condition of payment of 20 % payment of the cheque amount.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that applicant-appellant is unable to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, at this stage and Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act uses the word 'may' which implies that it is merely a directory provision and not mandatory. While arguing on these lines, prayer has been made for waiving of the payment of 20 % of the total amount of the cheque in question.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant- appellant and argued that there is no provision for waiving condition of payment of 20% of the compensation amount. While arguing on these lines, bail of appellant is sought to be cancelled.

4. Heard. File perused. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 26.3.2025 the sentence awarded to appellant was suspended during pendency of the present appeal subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 75,000/-with one surety in the like amount by the appellant.

1 of 6

CRR-2801-2025 Page |2

However, the Court intended to impose condition precedent of 20% payment of compensation amount under Section 148-A of the N.I.Act before the sentence can be suspended but on the request of counsel for appellant that such order needs to be passed on merits and should not be passed in a mechanical manner. To this limited extent this issue was kept pending till the appearance of respondent and upon his appearance, this aspect was ordered to be decided. It was further observed that bail shall be dependent upon decision of payment of part of compensation amount under Section 148-A N.I.Act.

5. Now, the respondent has put in appearance through counsel and no ground is made out to waive the aforesaid compensation amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India case titled "Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others", 2024 (1) SCC (Crl.) 90, has held that the sentence of the appellant is liable to be suspended without imposing condition of deposit of 20% compensation amount. Appellate Court must examine whether exceptional circumstances exist to waive such requirement. As the appellate Court thinks that there is no exceptional circumstances exist to waive such requirement, so this case does not come within the exception, accordingly appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.

Now the case is adjourned to 26.09.2025 for awaiting compliance of the aforesaid order, arguments on main appeal and record of learned trail Court be also summoned for the date fixed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation

amount as awarded by the trial Court on account of financial difficulty.

Learned counsel has further argued that due and requisite opportunity was

not afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated

26.08.2025 wherein condition for deposit of 20% of the amount of the

compensation has been stipulated by the learned Sessions Court. Learned

counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of

20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial

Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of

the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be

2 of 6

CRR-2801-2025 Page |3

quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of

compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

paper-book.

4. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced

through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the

deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as

a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour

cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged

litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving

compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person's right to

appeal and the complainant's right to speedy justice. The amount deposited

can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide

timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari

vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10)

SCC 446; relevant whereof reads 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 the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an 3 of 6

CRR-2801-2025 Page |4

exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not."

5. The convict bears the onus of demonstrating exceptional

circumstances to persuade the appellate court to waive the mandatory

deposit of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act. Considering the legislative intent behind the provision, which seeks to

expedite justice and alleviate the complainant's hardship due to prolonged

litigation, it is generally appropriate for the appellate court to impose this

condition when an appeal is filed against a conviction under Section 138.

Such a requirement ensures that the complainant is not unjustly deprived of

compensation while safeguarding the appellate process from frivolous or

dilatory tactics. Under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the

requirement to deposit the compensation amount as a condition for appeal is

generally mandatory, emphasizing its status as a rule.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Muskan

Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, has held

thus:

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that

normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards

4 of 6

CRR-2801-2025 Page |5

requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit

depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so

because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on

its forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit

in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is

exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit,

has to be conceded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx."

Ergo, the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in cases of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan

Enterprises (supra) enunciates that the appellate Court holds the discretion

to waive this condition only in exceptional circumstances. Such

circumstances must be demonstrated through compelling and substantiated

material provided by the appellant-convict. Absent such cogent material, it

would be in appropriate for appellate Court to impose such condition. This

approach ensures adherence to the legislative intent, discouraging frivolous

appeals and protecting the interests of the complainant.

5.1. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments in the case of

Jamboo Bhandari case (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra), no ground

is made out to quash/modify the condition imposed vide the impugned order

whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of the amount of the

compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The ground

pleaded by the petitioner that he is facing financial difficulty cannot be said

to be a ground sufficient enough for carving out an exception from the

mandate contained in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

It also cannot be said, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that

imposition of the condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of

compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate can be said to be

unjust or would amount to effectively taking away the right of appeal of 5 of 6

CRR-2801-2025 Page |6

petitioner. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity nay

legal infirmity calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the

petition in hand is dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

7. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the appeal pending before the learned Sessions

Court.

                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
November 07, 2025                                       JUDGE
Naveen



             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                                 6 of 6