JUDGMENT (Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.11435 of 2021: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17503 of 2019 in C.A.No.506 of 2018. In Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2021: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021 in C.A.No.506 of 2018.) Common Order: 1. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.11435 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17503 of 2019 in C.A.No.506 of 2018, thereby directed the petitioner herein to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, within a period of 60 days. 2. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021 in C.A.No.506 of 2018, thereby allowed the petitioner to vacate the interim order of suspension of sentence passed in Crl.M.P.No.16156 of 2018, dated 24.09.2018. 3. The petitioner is an accused. The complaint lodged by the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.15108 of 2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-II, Egmore. The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year. Further directed the petitioner to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.3,53,69,576/- as provided under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.506 of 2018 and also filed a petition for suspension of sentence. The sentence alone was suspended by the Appellate Court in Crl.M.P.No.16156 of 2018 by an order dated 24.09.2018. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking direction directing the petitioner herein to deposit the compensation amount ordered by the Trial Court and also permit the respondent herein to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner herein. The Appellate Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial court, within a period of 60 days. 5. The Appellate Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial court, within a period of 60 days. 5. However, the petitioner herein failed to comply with the said direction and as such the petitioner herein again filed another application in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021, to cancel the suspension of sentence on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to comply the direction issued by the Appellate Court under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said petition was allowed and cancelled the suspension of sentence granted to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed an appeal as against the conviction along with condone delay petition. The first Appellate Court, while allowing the condone delay petition, imposed condition to deposit 5% of compensation amount as condition and the same was challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21709 of 2018 and the condition imposed by the first Appellate Court was modified to the effect that the petitioner shall deposit 2% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court. The petitioner duly complied with the said condition and thereafter the delay was condoned. He further submitted that while filing an appeal, there was no amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act by enacting Section 148A of Negotiable Instruments Act. It came to effect from 01.09.2018 with regard to amendment of Act 20 of 2018. Further, it is also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Surinder Sigh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and ors Vs Virender Gandhi and another" in Crl.A.Nos.1936 to 1963 of 2019, that it is only purposive and not applicable to the case filed before 01.09.2018. Without considering the said fact laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the first Appellate Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, within a period of 60 days. He further submitted that the suspension of sentence cannot be vacated on the ground that the condition imposed by the Appellate Court was not complied with. 7. He further submitted that the suspension of sentence cannot be vacated on the ground that the condition imposed by the Appellate Court was not complied with. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, clarified in the appeal filed by the same parties namely "Surinder Sigh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and ors Vs Virender Gandhi and another" in the case of (2020) 2 SCC 514 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows, "The judgment of this Court which was delivered in the case of the present appellants i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019 (Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others vs. Virender Gandhi) (in which one of us M.R.Shah, J was also a member) was also cited before the Bench deciding the case of G.J. Raja. This Court in its judgment dated 29.05.2019 has rejected the submission of the appellants that Section 148 of N.I. Act shall not be made applicable retrospectively. This Court held that considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, on purposive interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No.20/2018 i.e. prior to 01.09.2018." Thus, it is clear that considering the amendment under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on purposive interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended shall be applicable in respect of the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed prior to Amendment Act 20 of 2018 namely prior to 01.09.2018. 8. Therefore, the first Appellate Court rightly directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court while convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below. 8. Therefore, the first Appellate Court rightly directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court while convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.