Chattisgarh High Court
Sudeep Sinha vs Rajendra Jaiswal on 23 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2025.07.24
18:41:46 +0530
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 : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate
For Respondent : Not noticed
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
23.07.2025
1 Heard.
2
2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
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 a1 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 (2023) 10 SCC 446
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024
5
8 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.
9 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