Chattisgarh High Court
Rupesh Sahu vs Narayan Kumar on 16 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.07.17
14:36:56 +0530
2025:CGHC:33385
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1833 of 2025
Rupesh Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 48 Years Occupation
- Service, R/o Below Pande Talab Ward No. 3, Bemetara, Tahsil
and District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
Narayan Kumar S/o Kalluram Dewangan aged about 51 years
R/o Yash Boss Tailors, Bajpai Complex, near Rest House,
Bemetara, Tahsil and District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
(Complainant)
... Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate
For Respondent : Not noticed
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
16.07.2025
1 Heard.
2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the
2
impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 32/2025 by the Learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (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
03.04.2025 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. 8,00,000/- from him and for the payment of the
said loan amount, one cheque amounting to Rs.
8,00,000/- was issued to him and upon production of the
said cheque the said cheque was dishonoured for
insufficient funds. 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
03.04.2025 and convicted the present petitioner and
sentenced him to ungdergo simple imprisonment for 1 year
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 three
months S.I. was ordered. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 03.04.2025 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
order dated 03.04.2025 which got allowed with a condition
that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation
3
amount within 60 days while suspending the execution of
the order dated 03.04.2025.
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 23.04.2025 and has wrongly imposed a condition of
depositing 20% of the compensation amount while
suspending the execution of order dated 03.04.2025. 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
minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial Court:
1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018.
4
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.
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
2 (2023) 10 SCC 446
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024
5
suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of
deposit of 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 03.04.2025 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)
in Criminal Case No. 2031/2021 stands suspended.
10 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of
admission.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham