Partly allowed

Vinod Goswami S/O Shri Babulal Goswami, v. Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Purushottam

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2025CRLMP/603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging a condition to deposit 20% of fine for suspension of sentence in NI Act appeal. Court, relying on Supreme Court judgment, modified the condition to deposit 10% of fine amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; petitioner directed to deposit 10% of fine amount in place of 20%. Rest of conditions remain.

Vinod Goswami S/O Shri Babulal Goswami, Vs Surendra Kumar… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49930]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.603/2025

¶4

Vinod Goswami S/o Shri Babulal Goswami, R/o House No. 208, Goswami Bhawan, Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Kota, District Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Purushottam, R/o Dahikheda, Police Station / Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

09/12/2025

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 challenging the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as, "the Appellate Court") whereby the Appellate Court while allowing the application filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence in a pending appeal against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, "the NI Act") has imposed a condition on the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount because by putting such condition it has taken away the petitioner’s right to file an appeal. Learned counsel submits that the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:49930]

[CRLMP-603/2025]

and he is suffering from financial crisis, therefore, the amount of fine shall be relaxed against the petitioner.

¶19

In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd & Ors. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446 , and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kailash Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. while deciding SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.2624/2024 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Mucchala Vs. Raghav Kacholiya while deciding SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.7955/2024 .

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kailash Soni (supra) and the judgment passed in the case of Harsh Mucchala (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to modify the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Court to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the fine amount in place of 20%.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands partly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Court stands modified only to the extent of fine amount.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-603/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:49930]

Hence, the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the fine amount and the rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court shall remain as it is.

¶27

In case, 10% of the fine amount is not deposited by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, the order dated 07.12.2024 will come into picture automatically and the petitioner would deposit 20% of the fine amount as directed by the Appellate Court.

¶28

Till deposition of the fine amount, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶29

Stay application and all other application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Karan/23

Vinod Goswami S/O Shri Babulal Goswami, v. Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Purushottam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Goswami S/O Shri Babulal Goswami, v. Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Purushottam

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

Monika Goswami D/O Shri Ramkalyan Goswami, W/O Shri Sunil Kumar Saini, Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Karan Export Vs Shri Trilok Chand Gupta S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta

Dharm Singh Son of Mangilal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin S/O Late Shri Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Jakhar S/O Sh. Birju Singh, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Charan Singh Singaria S/O Shri Om Prakash Singaria Vs State of Rajasthan