***

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL) --

CRM-48360-2025

Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the present petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 16 days in filing the present petition is condoned.

CRR No.3050 of 2025

The present petition under Section 438 BNSS has been filed for quashing of order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Mutksar Sahib, in an appeal bearing CRA-118 of 2025, whereby, in complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, learned Appellate Court below directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.

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 alleging that the accused in discharge of his legal liability towards the complainant, issued cheque bearing No.028711 dated 04.08.2021 amounting to Rs.2,40,000/-, Cheque bearing No. 028713 dated 12.08.2021 amounting to Rs.1,29,842/- and cheque bearing No.028714 dated 20.08.2021 amounting to Rs.1,29,842/- drawn on Federal Bank, Sri Muktsar Sahib. On presentation of the same, the same were dishonoured and returned with the remarks ‘Account Blocked’ vide memos dated 07.08.2021, 17.08.2021 and 21.08.2021.

3. Vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with a direction that the accused would pay compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the tune of double the cheque amount. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner and he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia 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 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. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held 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."

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not. The impugned order dated 14.08.2025 whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. The learned lower Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court.

6. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra).

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********