Pardeep Seth vs M/S P.K Verma And Company And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5283 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pardeep Seth vs M/S P.K Verma And Company And Another on 18 November, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH



145

CRM-M-63414-2025 (O&M)

Pardeep Seth
                                                         ....Petitioner(s)
                              V/s
M/s PK Verma & Company and another
                                                         ....Respondent(s)

(2)

CRM-M-63478-2025 (O&M)

Pardeep Seth
                                                         ....Petitioner(s)
                                       V/s
Pawan Kumar Verma and another
                                                         ....Respondent(s)
(3)

CRM-M-63504-2025 (O&M)

Pardeep Seth
                                                         ....Petitioner(s)
                                       V/s
Pawan Kumar Verma and another
                                                         ....Respondent(s)
(4)

CRM-M-63509-2025 (O&M)

Pardeep Seth
                                                         ....Petitioner(s)
                                       V/s
Pawan Kumar Verma and another
                                                         ....Respondent(s)


Decided on : 18.11.2025
Date of uploading: 18.11.2025



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:   Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                *****
                              1 of 6
           ::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2025 05:20:42 :::
 CRM-M-63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025
                                                                                  Page |2

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, the aforesaid four petitions i.e. CRM-M-

63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025, are being disposed off together, as the

same involve commonality of facts and issue(s).

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn out from

CRM-M-63414-2025 (titled as Pardeep Seth Vs. M/s P.K. Verma &

Company and another).

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

2023, preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 30.10.2025

(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,

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:

"An appeal has been received by way of entrustment. It be registered. There are arguable points in this appeal as per grounds of appeal as such, the same is admitted for hearing on merits subject to all just exceptions.

Along with this appeal, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been moved by the appellant. In view of the fact that the applicant/appellant was already on bail during trial before the trial court, it is justified to suspend his sentence during pendency of this appeal. However, in view of the amendment of Negotiable Instruments Act vide Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, he is directed to appear before the trial court/duty Magistrate within 15 days immediately proceeding the date of this order and on his doing so his sentence is ordered to be suspended on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, along with that 20% of compensation amount imposed upon him be also deposited before the trial court on the same day. Appeal stands adjourned to 29.11.2025 for issuance of notice upon the respondent along with grounds of appeal. Record of trial court be also requisitioned for the date fixed. Compliance report be also called from learned Trial Court."

2 of 6

CRM-M-63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025 Page |3

3. 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

30.10.2025 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

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.

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

paper-book.

5. 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

3 of 6

CRM-M-63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025 Page |4

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 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."

6. 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

4 of 6

CRM-M-63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025 Page |5

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

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 of 6

CRM-M-63414, 63478, 63504 & 63509-2025 Page |6

6.1. 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

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.

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

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

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

Court.

9. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected

case(s).

                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
November 18, 2025                                       JUDGE
Naveen



             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No
                                 6 of 6