SUNNY GOYAL Vs. MURLI DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS') seeking quashing of order dtd. 17/1/2025 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malerkotla in Criminal Appeal bearing No. CRA-15-2025, titled as Sunny Goyal vs. Murli Dhar, whereby, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, as awarded to him in criminal complaint filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act'), the learned first appellate Court had directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of 60 days from the date of passing the order.

(2.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court, while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided on 24/1/2024, Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M-20840-2024, decided on 26/4/2024, Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, decided on 8/2/2024 and Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-2024, decided on 18/1/2024.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.