Satguru Interpries Vs R.K. Ispat

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1982

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 115 of 2025

¶5

1 - Satguru Interpries Through Partner- Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal, S/o Nandlal Agrawal Mehadia Aged About 48 Years, Address- Shop No. 464, Sardarbazar Golcha Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

¶6

2 - Pankaj Nandlal Agrawal S/o Nandlal Agrawal Mehadia Aged About 48 Years R/o 261 Vighnesh Eternia, Behind Kriims Hospital, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra 440010

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - R.K. Ispat Through Proprietor- Manoj Sarawagi, S/o Late Satyanarayan Sarawagi, Age 64 Years, R/o Subhash Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent/s

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent : None.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶12

13/01/2025

¶13

1. This petition under Section 528 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, Raipur for Special Judge, under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur whereby the application filed by the petitioner before the Session Court under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 has been allowed subject to the condition of deposit of 20 % of the Rs. 40,00,000/- within a period of 60 days.

¶14

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been Date: 2025.01.14 11:13:39 +0530 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’) and

¶15

2

¶16

sentenced with Simple imprisonment of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 40,00,000/- with default stipulation. He further submits that the petitioner/accused filed application under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 449/2024 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail which was allowed by the learned Appellate Court but apart from the condition for furnishing personal bond and surety, condition of depositing 8,00,000/- ie. 20% of fine amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has been imposed.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the deposit of 20% as a condition to suspend the sentence is not an absolute rule and deprives the right of appeal. Suspension of sentence of convicted person also comes under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and any such condition cannot be imposed which can deprive him from his personal liberty. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2741 OF 2023 (@ SLP(CRL.) No(s). 4927 OF 2023) hence, it is prayed that condition with regard to the payment of 20% of fine amount stipulated by the learned appellate court within 60 days, may be set aside. He has also placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Another passed in CRM. No. 5495/2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6298/2024).

¶18

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellate court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶20

6. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 & 10 as under:-

¶21

“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,

¶22

3

¶23

when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.

¶24

In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception.”

¶25

7. In the present case, learned Appellate Court has imposed mandatory condition for payment of 20% of fine amount against the petitioner for suspension of sentence imposed against him, whereas as per provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act of 1881, imposition of such condition is not mandatory, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) , therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition. The condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court for payment of 20% of the fine amount is hereby set aside. However, the other conditions imposed by the learned Appellate Court for suspension of sentence shall remain intact.

¶26

8. However, the respondent herein has right to file an application before the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 188I. In the event of filing an application under Section 148 of NI Act, learned Appellant Court is directed to decide the application after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties on its own merits without prejudice to the order of this Court.

¶27

9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶30

Jyoti

Satguru Interpries v. R.K. Ispat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satguru Interpries v. R.K. Ispat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Vs Smt. Tanu Kesharwani

Rambilas Jaiswal Vs Smt. Prabhavati Jaiswal

Dr. Vipin Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sikandar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh