JIWAN SINGH Vs. AXIS BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023, is for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-324-2025, whereby, learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') and he was convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, under Sec. 138 of the Act, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 6/3/2025 (P-1) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was also ordered to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount to the complainant and in default of payment further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Counsel further submits that challenging the judgment dtd. 6/3/2025 (P-1), petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and thereupon learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dtd. 19/3/2025 (Annexure P-4) suspended the order of sentence qua petitioner, subject to the deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Due to the financial constraints, petitioner failed to comply with the order dtd. 19/3/2025 (Annexure P-4), however counsel submits that even otherwise also, impugned order dtd. 19/3/2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Appellate Court is in violation of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2024(1) SCC (Cri) 90, wherein it has been held that while considering the prayer under Sec. 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an appellant who has been convicted for offence under Sec. 138 of the Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider, whether the appeal before it, is an exceptional case or not, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence, but without imposing the condition to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount. And, 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, which is missing in the present case. It is submitted that learned Court below has not appreciated the facts of the case and other circumstances of the petitioner, as per mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra).

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that sentence of the petitioner was ordered to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by learned trial Court. However, petitioner did not comply with the same. This Court is of the view that dispute raised through the present petition can be decided in limine and without calling the other side here, because the way this Court intends to dispose of the present petition, no prejudice would be suffered by the complainant qua his rights.