Surguja (C.G.) ( v. Rajendra Jaiswal S
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.24 18:41:46 +0530 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI 2025:CGHC:35570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2305 of 2025 Sudeep Sinha S/o Late Akhilesh Sinha Aged About 36 Years R/o Beside Rani Pond, Rani Sati Temple, Sattipara, Chandgiram Residency, Ambikapur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil- Ambikapur Post Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) (Accused) ... Petitioner versus Rajendra Jaiswal S/o Late Mangal Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Bouripara, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Decision
Order on Board 23.07.2025 1 Heard. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under 2 Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2025 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the execution of the judgment dated 30.05.2025 on an application preferred under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023. 3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from him and for the payment of the said loan amount, two cheques amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- & 5,00,000/- were issued to him and upon production of the said cheques, the said cheque were cleared but, thereafter were dishonored due to payment stop by the drawer. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced in the case passed the judgment dated 30.05.2025 and convicted the present petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and directed to pay compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. of Rs. 10,00,000/- within the appeal limitation period and for non deposition of the said amount 1 month’s S.I. was ordered. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2025, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 before the Learned appellate Court along with an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of execution of 3 order dated 30.05.2025 which got allowed with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the execution of the order dated 30.05.2025. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any reason for the same. The learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 30.05.2025. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed. 5 Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently incorporated to the N.I. Act vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 20 of 2018), the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:- 1["148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a 1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018. 4 minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that………" (2)….. (3)….. Provided that …...] 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.2, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4927 of 2023) on 04.09.2023 held as under: “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.” 7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muskan Enterprises & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 3 , also followed the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. 2 3 (2023) 10 SCC 446 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024 8 9 5 In the case in hand, impugned order of the learned Appellate court does not disclose anything that the learned Appellate court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e. whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition to deposit 20% of the fine / compensation amount. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Appellate court is set aside and restored the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate court. The learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then, the execution of order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 391/2023 stands suspended. 10 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham