***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) as well as order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in CRA-22-2019 dated 16.01.2019 titled as ‘Sunil Kumar Vs. Surender Singh’ vide which the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court i.e. 20% of Rs.9 lakh within 60 days from the date of order and further cancel the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No. 002755 dated 14.06.2016 amounting to Rs.9 lakhs issued in favour of the complainant/respondent No.2 by the petitioner in discharge of his liability. Respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioner in which vide order dated 21.12.2018, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven months and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.9 lakh i.e. the amount of cheque, within two months from the date of order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 31.08.2023, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount. The petitioner was unable to arrange the requisite compensation amount, therefore, the order of suspension of sentence was revoked and the trial Court was directed to execute the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In pursuance of said directions, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide order dated 08.12.2023 issued arrest warrant against the petitioner.

3. 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 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509. 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 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 4 conclusion must be recorded.”

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 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount awarded has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence and order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby, bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State, are 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.

4. 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).

5. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

********