[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Ram And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 January, 2026
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh
131
CRM-M-1820-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 16.01.2026
Amrik Ram and Another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under sections 528
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to set aside the
order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur in CRA-43 of 2025 in a Complaint case no NACT-
996 of 2020 under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments act dated
03.12.2020, whereby the suspension of sentence of the petitioner has been
vacated due to non deposit of 20% of compensation amount as imposed by Ld.
Trial court and to set aside the non bailable warrants dated 21.05.2025
(Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) was filed by the
complainant on a dishonour of cheque No.000046 dated 01.10.2020, for sum
1 of 4
CRM-M-1820-2026 (O&M) (2)
of Rs.11,82,634/-, allegedly issued by the accused-petitioner in favour of the
complainant.
3. Vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to
pay Rs.11,82,634/-, as compensation to the complainant. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order
of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge concerned. The learned
Appellate Court vide order dated 30.01.2025, suspended the sentence of the
petitioner and directed to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount
imposed by trial Court within a period of 60 day from the date of passing of
the said order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective
and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation.
5. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is
not able to deposit 20% fine/compensation as he is directed to deposit vide
order dated 30.01.2025 inasmuch he is under severe financial distress and
without appreciating the facts and circumstances, passed the impugned order
dated 15.05.2025 whereby suspension of sentence granted to the petitioner was
revoked and further vide order dated 21.05.2025, non bailable warrants against
the petitioner were issued and the police authorities concerned were directed to
arrest the petitioner. As such, he prays that the present petition be accepted.
2 of 4
CRM-M-1820-2026 (O&M) (3)
6. Given the nature of order this Court proposes to pass, no notice is
required to be issued to the respondent.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
8. Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Coromandel
International Limited Vs. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation has held as under:
"76. Therefore, the simplest solution to all these issues is
that whenever the deposits are expensive than the liberty,
and the Appellate Courts are convinced that the convicts
are not in a position to deposit and likely to forego their
liberty even when the first appeal is yet to be decided, the
Appellate Courts must make efforts to prioritize hearing
appeals filed against the convictions under Section 148 NI
Act and decide those preferably within sixty days of filing,
and not later than ninety days, which clearly aligns with
the legislators' intentions. However, the time of sixty days
should be extended to the extent to which the decision of
the appeal is delayed because of the complainant."
9. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is not able to deposit 20% of fine/compensation due to severe
financial distress. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s
Coromandel International Limited's case (supra) had already held that the
Appellate Courts must make efforts to prioritize hearing appeals filed against
the conviction under Section 138 of NIA Act and decide the same within 60
days of the filing and not later than 90 days, where the appellant is not in a
position to deposit the compensation amount as ordered by the Appellate Court.
3 of 4
CRM-M-1820-2026 (O&M) (4)
10. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear
before the lower Appellate Court within a period of 10 days from the date of
passing of this order and till that time, the petitioner shall not be arrested by the
police authorities concerned. However, in case the petitioner fails to appear
before the Court concerned within the stipulated period, then the relief granted
by this Court qua his arrest, shall deems to be withdrawn.
11. Given above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to
the Appellate Court concerned to hear the appeal of the petitioner and decide
the same within 60 days and not later than 90 days. It is further clarified that
the parties shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.
11. Disposed of.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( SUBHAS MEHLA )
16.01.2026 JUDGE
Sonia Puri
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
4 of 4
