Shivshankar Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed byRAVI SHANKARMANDAVI Date: 2026.09.2211:15:14 +0530

CGHC010336042026

2026:CGHC:40672

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 2420 of 2026

¶8

1 - Shivshankar Shrivas S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Shrivas Aged About 70 Years R/o Shrivas Aata Chakki, Main Road Sirgitti, Chauk Bannak P.S. Sirgitti District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Age wrongly mentioned as 60 years in the order sheet)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Smt. Sharda Pandey W/o Rajesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 57 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Mahima Nagar Sirgitti P.S. Sirgitti Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer

¶14

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

17/09/2026

¶17

As this CRMP is filed against the condition of depositing 20% of the amount of compensation while allowing the application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS, I find it appropriate to

¶18

2

¶19

consider and dispose this petition without issuing notice to the respondent No.2.

¶20

Facts relevant for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court against judgment passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in N.I.A. Case No.52/2022 whereby the learned Magistrate has passed an order of punishment to the petitioner herein under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (henceforth referred as ‘N.I. Act’) simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and have also ordered for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant therein and in default of payment of amount of compensation, separate simple imprisonment of 6 months was ordered.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having good case in his favour before the appellate Court. Along with the appeal, petitioner has also filed an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence with a prayer for suspending the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, however while allowing the application filed by the appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS in part has directed the appellant to deposit 20% of amount of compensation within a period of 60 days. He contended that learned Session Court failed to take note of age of appellant/petitioner to be 60 years mentioned in memo appeal, on the date of filing of application under Section 138 of N.I. Act which is of the year 2020.

¶22

3

¶23

Now the appellant/petitioner is more than 65 years of age. Petitioner has also suffered from brain hemorrhage for which treatment has been taken and therefore, the condition imposed for depositing 20% of the amount of compensation be relaxed.

¶24

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the condition imposed of depositing 20% of amount of compensation is in accordance with provision under Section 148(1) of N.I. Act.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also peruse the documents available on record.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act as also the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellant/petitioner and further in default simple imprisonment of 6 months is also ordered. In an appeal, the application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS is allowed in part and Court has stayed the execution of judgment of conviction of learned Magistrate with a condition that if 20% of amount of compensation is not yet deposited than it be deposited within a period of 60 days.

¶27

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others (2023) 10 SCC 446 has considered the deposit of 20% of amount of compensation under Section 148 (1) of N.I. Act and held thus :

¶28

4

¶29

“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.

¶30

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the 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.

¶31

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.”

¶32

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that learned appellate Court has not given any consideration as to whether the entire judgment passed by learned Magistrate can be stayed or not, when there is no specific prayer made by the petitioner in an application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C./430 of BNSS. The learned appellate Court has not recorded any finding as to why prayer made by the petitioner in an application for

¶33

5

¶34

suspending the entire judgment passed by learned trial Court is not acceptable and therefore, the conditions imposed by the appellate Court of direction to the petitioner herein/appellant therein to deposit 20% of amount of compensation in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable.

¶35

Accordingly, it is set aside maintaining the other conditions imposed by the learned appellate Court in its order dated 15.07.2026, however it is made clear that complainant/respondent No.2 will be at liberty to file separate application under Section 148 of N.I. Act, which shall be considered and decided by the learned appellate Court in accordance with law.

¶36

Accordingly this CRMP stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶39

Ravi Mandavi

Shivshankar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivshankar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases