Sunrise Packers Through Its Proprietor Syed Wiqar Ul Haque v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24831 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶1Heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. no.2.

¶2A joint statement has been made by the leaned counsel for the parties that they do not want to file any affidavit.

¶3With the consent of the parties, the case is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶4This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the District/Session Judge Amroha in Appeal No. 81 of 2025 dated 26.06.2025, under Sections 138, 141 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Saidangali, District Amroha Arising out of Case No. 262 of 2024, under Sections 138, 141 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Saidangali, District Amroha, Pending Before the District/Sessions Court, Amroha and to set aside the order passed, under sec 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, by the said court against the applicant to pay the 20% of the total compensation amount i.e Rs. 7,60,000 mandatorily within 15 days from the date of the order which shall expire on 15.06.2025.

¶5The case of the applicant is that post-lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant came to be convicted on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Kesarwani, Shiva Pandey, Shrish Chandra, Siddhant Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lalit Kumar Ojha, Pawan Kumar Shukla Sunrise Packers Through Its Proprietor Syed Wiqar Ul Haque .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s)

02.06.2025 by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ FTC-1st/ Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case no.262 of 2024 for imprisonment of one year and fine to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/- against which an appeal bearing number "8 of 2025" came to be preferred by the applicant along with the stay application for staying the conviction, sentence and recovery and on

26.6.2025, the court below proceeded to pass an order directing for deposit of 20% of the interim compensation to the tune of Rs.7,60,000/- out of Rs.38,00,000/-.

¶6Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that order dated

26.06.2021 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same is not as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Corporation Ltd., (2023) 0 SC 8855. He submits as to whether the case of the applicant falls under the exceptional category or not has not been considered. However, the learned counsel for the applicant as per the instructions received from his clients submits that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the total amount of Rs.38,00,000/-.

¶8Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the O.P. No.2 submit that the sword of conviction is hanging on the neck of the applicant, however he could not dispute the fact that there has been no consideration with regard to the fact whether the case of the applicant falls under the exceptional category or not. According to him, in case the applicant seeks to deposit 10% then there is no objection and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order.

¶9I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

¶10The order dated 26.06.2025 reads as under:- "26.06.2025-आज यह ३ए फौजदारी अपील मय 4 बी शपथ प्ऴ िव्षान अवर न्वायालय ्षारा पािरत आलोच्य िनणर्य/आदेश िदनांिकत 02.06.2025 के िवरु्ध मुसिरम की आख्या सिहत ्ऺाप्त होकर पेश हुई। आदेश हुआ िक-्ऺ स्तुत फौजदारी अपील के अंगीकरण के िबन्दु पर अपीलाथर् के िव्षान अिधव्वा को सुना तथा आ्षेिपत िनणर्य एव दण्डादेश व मुंसिरम िरपोटर् का अवलोकन िकया। यह फौजदारी अपील, अपीलाथर् ्षारा न्यायालय िसिवल जज (जू०िड०)/एफ.टी.सी. ्ऺथम / न्याियक मिजस््िेट, अमरोहा के ्षारा पिरवाद संख्या-262/2024, सतेन््श कुमार बनाम सनराईज पैकसर् ्षारा ्ऺोपराईटर वकार उल्ला , अन्तगर्त धारा-138 पर्वाम्य िलखत अिधिनयम, थाना सैदनंगली, िजला अमरोहा में पािरत िनणर्य एवं दण् डादेशािदनांिकता02.06.2025 के ािवरू दध ापऺ स् तुताकीागयीाह।ै ािनणर्यावादण् डादेशाके ामाध् यमासेािवदष ाना िवचारणान् यायालयादष ारााअपीलाथर् /अिभयुकव ासनराईजापैकसर्ादष ाराापऺ ो०ावकाराउल् लााकोाधाराा138 परकव ाम् या िलखताअिधिनयमामेंादोषीापातेाहु एाके ाएकावषर्ाके ासाधारणाकारावासावाअंकना38,00,000/- (अडतीसालाख ) रु पयेाअथर्दण् डासेादिण् डतािकयाागयााहाै एवंाअथर्दण् डाअदााकरनेापराअिभयुकव ाकोातीनामाहाकााअितिरकव ा साधारणाकारावासाभुगतनााहोगा। आकष ेिपतािनणर्याएवंादण् डादेशाके ािवरू दध ादािण् डकाअपीला्ष ा्ि ाह।ै ाअतःायहाफौजदारीाअपीलाअंगीकृ ताकीा जातीाह।ै ापंजीकृ ताहो।ािवपकष ीगणाकोानोिटसाजारीाहो।ाअपीलाथर् , पैरवीासातािदवसामेंाकरें।ावास् तेाबहसा िदनांका25.07.2025 कोापेशाहो। स्ऴ ान् यायाधीश अमरोहा पऺ ाथर्नााप?ऴ ा5 बी- अपीलाथर् /अिभयुकव ाकीाओरासेापऺ श् नगतादण् डादेशाएवाअथर्दण् डाकीाधनरािशाकोास् थिगता िकयेाजानेाहते ुापऺ स् तुतािकयाागयााहाै तथाायहाकथनािकयााहाै िकानोिटसािविधािवरु दध ाहोनेावापिरवादासंधारणीया नाहोनेाके ाबावजूदाभीाआलोच् यािनणर्यापािरतािकयाागयााह।ै ाअपीलाथर् ादष ारााचैकास् टॉपाकरायाागयााथा।ा अपीलाथर् ादष ारााथानााहाजाापरापऺ श् नगताचैकों ाकीासूचनााथानााहाजाापरादीाथी।ाइसके ाअितिरकव ायहाभीाकथना िकयाागयाािकाअपीलापऺ स् तुताकरतेासमयाधनरािशा20 पऺ ितशताअथर्दण् डाधाराा148, 139 N.I.Act जमााकरनेा काापऺ ावधानामैनडेटरीानहीं ाह,ै जैसाािकामाननीयाउच् चान् यायालया/ उच् चतमान् यायालयादष ाराािविभन् नािनणर्यों ामेंा इसािविधकापऺ ावधानाकोाभाषान् तिरतािकयााहाै तथाास् पषि ीकृ ताकराएडजूिडके शनािकयाािकानोिटसाके ाआधारापरा िनिणतािकयाागयाािकापिरवादाअिविधकाह।ै ाइसापऺ ाथर्नााप्ऴ ापरासुनाागया।ाप्ऴ ावलीाकााअवलोकनािकयाा गया। माननीयाउच् चतमान् यायालयादष ारााजम् बूाभंडारीाबनामाम?् यापऺ देशारा?् याऔ?य ोिगकािवकासािनगमािलिमटेडा एवंाअन् या2023 लीगलाइगला(एस.सी.) 906 मेंायहाअवधािरतािकयाागयााहाै िकः- "6. ……….However, in a case whee the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition wil amount to deprivation of the right of appeal, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded." उपरोकव ािविधा्ि वस् थााके ापऺ काशामें, अपीलाथर् ादष ाराापऺ स् तुतास् टाे पऺ ाथर्नााप्ऴ ामेंाजोािबन् दु ाउठायेागयेाहैं, वेामामलेा के ागुणादोषाके ासंबंधामेंाहाै तथााकोईाऐसाािबन् दु ानहीं ाउठायाागयााहाै िजसके ाआधारापरालगायेागयेाजुमार्नेाकाा बीसापऺ ितशताजमााकरनााअपीलाथर् ाके ािलएाअन् यायपूणर्ायााउसकोाअपीलाके ाअिधकारासेावंिचताकरनााजैसाा होगा।ातदानुसाराअपीलाथर् ाउकव ािविधा्ि वस् थााकाालाभापानेाकााअिधकारीानहीं ाह।ै पऺ स् तुतामामलेामेंाअपीलाथर् /अिभयुकव ाकोाधारा-138 परकव ाम् यािलिखताअिधिनयमामेंाएकावषर्ाके ासाधारणा कारावासावाअंकना38,00,000/- (अड़ तीसालाख) रू पयेाके ाअथर्दण् डासेादिण् डतािकयाागयााह।ै ाअपीला्ष ा्ि ा कीाजााचुकीाह।ै ाअतःाधारा-148 परकव ाम् यािलखताअिधिनयमाके ापऺ ावधानाकोादेखतेाहएाअपीलाथर् / अिभयुकव ा दष ारााअथर्दण् डामेंाअिधरोिपताधनरािशाकीाबीसापऺ ितशता(20%) धनरािशाअथार्ता7,60,000/- रू पयेापन् दश हािदना के ाअन् दरान् यायालयामेंाजमााकरनेापराआकष ेिपतादण् डादेशाकाािकव यान् वयनाअपीलाके ािनस् तारणातकास् थिगता रहगे ा। स्ऴ ान् यायाधीश अमरोहा पऺ ाथर्नााप?ऴ ा7 बी- अपीलाथर् /अिभयुकव ाकीाओरासेाउसेाजमानतापरािरहााकरनेाहते ुािदयाागयााऔराकहाागयाा िकाउसेाअपीलामेंासफलाहोनेाकीापूरीाआशााह।ै ावहापूवर्ामेंाजमानतापराथा, उसनेाजमानताकाादु रू पयोगानहीं ा िकया है। अतः उसे अपील के दौरान जमानत पर िरहा िकया जाये। सुना एवं आ्षेिपत िनणर्य एवं दण्डादेश व प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया।्ऺ स्तुत मामला पिरवाद पर आधािरत है और धारा 138 पर्वाम्य िलखत अिधिनयम के अन्तगर्त चैक अनावृत होने पर दायर िकया गया है। अपीलाथर् की ओर से कहा गया िक वह पूवर् में जमानत पर था। उसने जमानत का दुरूपयोग नहीं िकया है। उसे अपील में सफल होने की आशा है। अतः मामले के समस्त तथ्यों व पिरिस्थितयों तथा अपराध की ्ऺकृित को देखते हुए अपीलाथर्/अिभयु्व सनराईज पैकसर् ्षारा ्ऺोपराईटर वकार उल्ला ्षारा अंकन बीस-बीस हजार रूपये के दो जमानती एवं इतनी ही धनरािश का ्ि ि्वगत बन्धप्ऴ न्यायालय की संतुि्ि का दािखल करने पर उसे अपील के दौरान जमानत पर िरहा िकया जाये। स्ऴ न्यायाधीश अमरोहा"

¶11A bare look of the order dated 26.06.2025 would reveal that the same is not as per the mandate of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), wherein following was observed:- "8. 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.

¶9We 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.

¶10In 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."

¶12In the opinion of the Court, the Court was under obligation to consider the fact whether the case of the applicant falls under exceptional category or not. Since the same has not been considered then the order cannot be set aside. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms: -

(a) The order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amroha in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2025 in so far as it directs for deposit of 20% of the total amount of Rs.38,00,000/- is set aside.

(b) The matter has been remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order.

(c) Since the applicant has made the statement that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the said amount being Rs.3,80,000/-, thus the same will be deposited by 17.10.2025.

(d) The amount which will be deposited shall be adjusted post passing of the fresh order after remand.

¶13In case the said amount as directed is not deposited, the consequences shall follow.

¶14With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. September 26, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad