Ramesh Chand v. Ram Niwas

I

Ramesh C Ram Niw

CORAM

PRESENT

SANJAY

¶1against th Judge, Ku

¶2(complain the Negot being in g of Rs.6,00 assured th of one mo 634997, d responden by the re bank with dated 16.0 the petitio IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDI

Chand

Versus was

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S T: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner(s). **** Y VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has he order dated 21.12.2024, pass urukshetra, passed in CRA-287-2 Counsel for the petitioner sub nant) filed a complaint against t tiable instruments Act, 1881 (in good relations with the complain 0,000/- for depositing the educa he respondent that he would retu onth and for the said purpose, pe dated 14.08.2019, for a sum o nt – complainant. However, wh spondent – complainant before h the report of dishonoured due

08.2019. After that when the res oner for repayment, the petitio UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH

CRR-245-2025

Decided on : 29.01.20

. . . Petitioner s

. . . Respondent(s) SANJAY VASHISTH s been preferred by the petitio sed by the learned Addl. Sessi 2024, filed by the petitioner. bmits that respondent – Ram Niw the petitioner under Section 138 short, 'NI Act') on the ground th nant, petitioner had borrowed a s ation fee of his son. Petitioner h urn the said amount within a per etitioner issued cheque bearing N of Rs.6,00,000/-, in favour of hen the said cheque was presen e the Bank, it was returned by to "Funds Insufficient" vide me spondent – complainant approach oner did not pay any heed to r(s) oner ons was 8 of hat, sum had riod No. nted emo hed request.

by the res Magistrat conviction dated 29. of six mo financial l

conviction lower App during the

¶3Appellate applicatio bail to the within a p NI Act, w warrantin

¶4placed rel Bhandari 2023(10) considerin Apex Cou Further submits that a compl spondent – complainant, which w te Ist Class, Kurukshetra (learne n dated 27.11.2024. The learned

11.2024, sentenced the petitione onths and also to pay compensat loss suffered by the respondent – Thereafter, petitioner filed a n 27.11.2024 and order of sent pellate Court along with an app e pendency of appeal. Learned counsel for the p e Court while issuing notice in th on of the petitioner vide impugn e petitioner subject to deposit of period of 60 days from the date without recording any reasons a g deposit of said compensation a In support of his contentio liance upon judgment of Hon'bl i v. M.P. State Industrial Devel SCC 446 : Law Finder Doc Id ng Section 148 of the Negotia urt held that in a given situation, aint u/s 138 of the NI Act was fi was decided by the learned Judic ed trial Court) vide its judgment d Trial Court vide order of sente er to undergo simple imprisonm ation of Rs.9,00,000/- in lieu of – complainant. an appeal against the judgment tence dated 29.11.2024, before plication for suspension of sente petitioner argues that the low he said appeal and allowing the b ned order dated 21.12.2024, gran f 20% of the compensation amo of order, as per Section 148 of and treating it as an absolute ru amount. on, counsel for the petitioner le Apex Court rendered in Jamb lopment Corporation Ltd. & O d # 2313888, and submits that wh able Instruments Act, the Hon' the requisite deposit of 20% of iled cial t of nce ment t of nce wer bail nted ount ule, has boo Ors., hile 'ble compensa completel

reproduce

¶5ation amount is not absolute and ly exempted for the reasons to be For reference, relevant parag ed here-under:- "6. What is held by this Co should be made of Section 148 of Court will be justified in imposing Section 148. However, in a case that the condition of deposit of 2 condition will amount to depri appellant, exception can be made

¶7Therefore, when Appella Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an offence under Section 138 of th Appellate Court to consider wh warrants grant of suspension of s of deposit of 20% of the fine/com the Appellate Court comes to th case, the reasons for coming to th

¶8The submission of the lear complainant is that neither before Court, there was a plea made by made in these cases and the requ the amount be dispensed with. H made by the appellants, there wer the said plea.

¶9We disagree with the abov under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. applies for grant of relief of condition. Therefore, when a bla the Court has to consider whether

¶10In these cases, both the Se proceeded on the erroneous pr amount is an absolute rule which

¶11The learned counsel appe states that the appellants have amount. However, this is the matt

¶12In these circumstances, w High Court and restore the rev before the High Court. We direct Bench of the High Court on 09 High Court to fix a date for he contesting parties are before the High Court to issue a notice of Court, after hearing the parties, w is already deposited or not. If the of the amount is not deposited, Petitions in the light of what we disposal of the restored Revision this Court ordering suspension of Having heard counsel for th d same can either be reduced or e recorded by Appellate Court. graphs of the aforesaid judgment ourt is that a purposive interpretati f the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appell g the condition of deposit as provided e where the Appellate Court is satisf 20% will be unjust or imposing such ivation of the right of appeal of for the reasons specifically recorded. ate Court considers the prayer und n accused who has been convicted f he N.I. Act, it is always open for hether it is an exceptional case wh sentence without imposing the condit mpensation amount. As stated earlier he conclusion that it is an exception he said conclusion must be recorded. rned counsel appearing for the origin e the Sessions Court nor before the Hi the appellants that an exception may uirement of deposit or minimum 20% He submits that if such a prayer was n re no reasons for the Courts to consid ve submission. When an accused appl for suspension of sentence, he norma f suspension of sentence without a anket order is sought by the appellan r the case falls in exception or not. essions Courts and the High Court ha remise that deposit of minimum 20 does not accommodate any exception earing for the appellants, at this sta e deposited 20% of the compensati ter to be examined by the High Court. we set aside the impugned orders of vision petitions filed by the appella t the parties to appear before the ros

9.10.2023 in the morning to enable earing of the revision petitions. As e Court, it will not be necessary for f the date fixed for hearing. The Hi will consider whether 20% of the amou Court comes to the conclusion that 20 the Court will re-examine the Revisi have observed in this judgment. Till n Petitions, the interim order passed f sentence will continue to operate." he petitioner and going through r be are ion late d in fied h a . der for ich ion r, if nal nal High y be % of not der lies ally any nts, ave 0% n. age, ion ants ster High unt 0% ion propositio Bhandari be dispos petitioner petitioner

¶6aside to t period of

learned C petitioner with regar

7.

January J.Ram

Whether sp Whether Re

on of law, laid down by the i's case (supra), I am of the con sed of without issuing notice to r to appear before the learned Co r is pending adjudication, with lib Accordingly, impugned orde the extent of deposit of 20% of 60 days. Petitioner through his couns Court below on or before 10.0 r and hearing him, the learned C rd to the condition of deposit of Petition stands disposed of 29, 2025 peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamb nsidered view that this petition o the other side, by relegating ourt below, where the appeal of berty to raise all such pleas there er dated 21.12.2024, is hereby s the compensation amount withi sel is directed to appear before

2.2025. Upon appearance of Court below shall pass fresh ord 20% of the compensation amoun accordingly. (SANJAY VASHIST JUDGE

boo can e. set-in a ders nt. TH)