Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Raj vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-53173-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53173-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 16.10.2025
BALDEV RAJ ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Charanjit Lal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
Criminal No. NACT-41/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Complaint titled as "Suresh Kumar Vs. Baldev Raj" decided on 28.02.2024 CNR No. PBSGD100143-2018 Criminal CRA-171-2024 titled as "Baldev Raj Vs. Suresh Kumar"
Appeal CNR No. PBSG01-002683-2024 Pending before the Appellate Court.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in the captioned case above, whereby suspension of sentence granted to petitioner was revoked due to non-deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak and while suspending the sentence vide order dated 28.03.2024, petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded. Thereafter, an application for extension of time to deposit the said amount has been moved, however, vide order dated 03.07.2024, the appellate Court had held that the appellant has failed to deposit the 20% of the compensation amount in terms of earlier order dated 28.03.2024, therefore, the suspension of his sentence granted to him vide order dated 28.03.2024 stands cancelled and the appellant was taken into custody. Thereafter, second application for suspension of sentence, pending appeal has been filed by the petitioner. The said application has been dismissed by the appellate Court, vide order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-7).
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 19:25:55 ::: CRM-M-53173-2025 2
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that now Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Coromandel International Limited Vs. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation has held as under:
"76. Therefore, the simplest solution to all these issues is that whenever the deposits are expensive than the liberty, and the Appellate Courts are convinced that the convicts are not in a position to deposit and likely to forego their liberty even when the first appeal is yet to be decided, the Appellate Courts must make efforts to prioritize hearing appeals filed against the convictions under Section 148 NI Act and decide those preferably within sixty days of filing, and not later than ninety days, which clearly aligns with the legislators' intentions. However, the time of sixty days should be extended to the extent to which the decision of the appeal is delayed because of the complainant."
4. State counsel handed over custody certificate of petitioner, which is taken on record.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied if a direction is issued to the concerned Appellate Court to decide appeal of petitioner within 60 days in view of the ratio of M/s Coromandel International Limited (supra) in this case.
6. Given the nature of order this Court proposes to pass, no notice is required to issue private respondent.
7. Since a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2025, had emphasised upon decision of the appeal(s) within 60+30 days, where the applicant is not in a position to deposit compensation amount as ordered in such case by Appellate Court. Present appeal is pending before the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court, it shall be appropriate that the appeal be heard within 60 days extendable for 30 days as mentioned in the judgement (supra), subject to the condition that the accused-appellant shall not seek any adjournment.
8. Perusal of the custody certificate dated 23.09.2025, petitioner already undergone 01 year, 02 months and 20 days and given the prayer of the petitioner to decide the appeal in stipulated period, petitioner makes out a case.
9. Given above, present petition is disposed of with a request to the concerned Appellate Court to hear the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same within 60 days i.e. on or before 15.12.2025. Till the decision of the appeal, the remaining sentence of the petitioner is suspended, subject to furnishing of requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned. It is clarified that the petitioner-accused shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, if he does so, this order shall stand recalled automatically resorting to provision 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 19:25:56 ::: CRM-M-53173-2025 3 of Section 403 read with 528 BNSS, 2023. It is further clarified that if the complainant seeks any adjournment, then the time for which the matter is adjourned on his/her request, the time to decide the appeal shall be extended to that extent. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
16.10.2025
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 19:25:56 :::