Harnek Singh v. The Fazilak Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15763-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2025 Harnek Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

The Fazilka Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. A.S. Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby the application filed by petitioner seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made to stay the operation of the order dated 18.11.2024 as well as the order dated 06.03.2025, during the pendency of the present petition.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1/complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 420 IPC on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No.326483 dated 19.07.2019 amounting to Rs.13,22,000/- issued in

favour of the complainant/respondent No.1 by the petitioner in discharge of the liability. Vide judgment dated 22.10.2024 and order of sentence of even date, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and was further directed to pay compensation equal to the amount of cheque to the complainant/respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. The learned Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 18.11.2024, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 90 days from the date of order. However, the petitioner could not deposit the said amount on time and thereafter, filed an application seeking extension of time for depositing the compensation amount, which was dismissed by learned Lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 06.03.2025.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the learned Lower Appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. He further submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court has even failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation vide order dated 18.11.2024 and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial

Development Corporation Ltd. and others", 2013 (12) SCALE 611, 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 conclusion must be recorded." 4.

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. Accordingly, the order 18.11.2024 whereby the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount awarded has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence as well as the order dated 06.03.2025, are hereby set-aside.

5.

The learned Lower Appellate Court is directed to reexamine 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 stands disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 21.03.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No