M/S Star Enterprises And Another vs Ranjeet Singh And Another

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


139
CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026

M/s Star Enterprises and another ...Petitioners

Versus


Ranjeet Singh and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab



(Oral)
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile
Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned order
dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra, in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2025, titled as M/s Star
Enterprises and another versus Ranjeet Singh and another , whereby the
petitioner-convict has been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount awarded by the learned Trial Court, i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-, in terms of
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -2-
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’).
The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"Criminal Appeal received by way of assignment. It be checked and
registered. Since there are arguable points involved in the present
appeal, same is admitted for hearing. Alongwith the appeal, an
application has been moved by the appellant/convict under Section
430 BNSS for suspension of conviction and sentence during the
pendency of appeal and for bail. Learned counsel for
appellant/convict has argued that appellant is not having financial
capacity to pay 20% of the compensation amount and same may be
waived off.
Heard. From the facts of the case, there are no exceptional
circumstances made out to waive off or reduce 20% of compensation
amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1130.
However, the present appeal is not likely to be heard in near future
and will take some time to ripe and be decided. For the reasons
mentioned in the application under Section 430 BNSS, the same is
hereby allowed and sentence imposed on the appellant/convict is
ordered to be suspended till the final decision of the appeal and he is
ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within fifteen (15) days.
Moreover, the appellant/convict is directed to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount within a period of 60 days from today as per
Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, failing which his bail shall
be liable to be cancelled."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner-
convict is not in a position to deposit 20% of the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner-
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -3-
convict has specifically disputed his liability towards the complainant and has
taken the stand that the cheque in question was never issued in discharge of
any legally enforceable debt or liability. Rather, the same was allegedly
misused by the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner-convict has raised several debatable issues in the appeal, which are
yet to be considered by the learned Appellate Court. It is contended that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, while imposing the condition of deposit
of 20% of the compensation amount, has not recorded any specific reasons as
to why the case does not fall within the exceptional circumstances warranting
waiver of such deposit. It is further argued that the imposition of the aforesaid
condition would cause undue hardship to the petitioner-convict and would
effectively deprive him of his right to pursue the appeal. Learned counsel,
therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside to the extent of the
condition requiring deposit of 20% of the compensation amount.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
paper book.
4. Section 148 of the NI Act, introduced through the 2018
amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the deposit of at least 20%
of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as a condition for hearing
an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138.
This provision aims to address the prolonged litigation faced by complainants
and mitigate delays in receiving compensation, ensuring a balance between
the accused person's right to appeal and the complainant's right to speedy
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -4-
justice. The amount deposited can be released to the complainant, reflecting
the legislative intent to provide timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.
5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P.
State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) SCC 446 ;
relevant whereof reads as under:
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should
be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate
Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided
in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is
satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing
such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the
appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
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.
8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original
complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -5-
High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception
may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum
20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer
was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts
to consider the said plea.
9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused
applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he
normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without
any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the
appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception
or not."
6. The convict bears the onus of demonstrating exceptional
circumstances to persuade the Appellate Court to waive the deposit of
compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act. Considering the legislative
intent behind the provision, which seeks to expedite justice and alleviate the
complainant’s hardship due to prolonged litigation, it is generally appropriate
for the appellate Court to impose this condition when an appeal is filed against
a conviction under Section 138 of NI Act. Such a requirement ensures that the
complainant is not unjustly deprived of compensation while safeguarding the
appellate process from frivolous or dilatory tactics. Under Section 148 of the
NI Act, the requirement to deposit the compensation amount as a condition
for appeal is generally mandatory, emphasizing its status as a rule.Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Muskan Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The
State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046 , has held thus:
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -6-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that normally
the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a
deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon
the factual situation in every individual case, more so because an
order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its
forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit
in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is
exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order
deposit, has to be conceded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
Ergo, the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan
Enterprises (supra) enunciates that the appellate Court holds the discretion to
waive this condition only in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances
must be demonstrated through compelling and substantiated material
provided by the appellant-convict. Absent such cogent material, it would be
in appropriate for appellate Court to impose such condition. This approach
ensures adherence to the legislative intent, discouraging frivolous appeals and
protecting the interests of the complainant.
7. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments in the case of
Jamboo Bhandari case (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra), no ground
is made out to quash/modify the condition imposed vide the impugned order
whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit 20% of the amount of
the compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The ground
pleaded by the petitioners about financial difficulty cannot be said to be a
ground sufficient enough for carving out an exception from the mandate
contained in Section 148 of the NI Act. It also cannot be said, in the facts and
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61052-2026 (O&M) -7-
circumstances of the present case, that imposition of the condition of deposit
of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court
can be said to be unjust or would amount to effectively taking away the right
of appeal of petitioners. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity nay legal infirmity calling for any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the petition in hand is dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of
opinion upon merits of the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Court
in any manner.

03.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
Atul JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.04 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document