Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Surinder Singh Deswal@ Col. S.S. Deswal & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
Virender Gandhi & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1936-1963 OF 2019
Decided on : 08-01-2020
(a) Administration of justice - Supreme Court already upholding order of appellate court suspending sentence on the condition of deposit of 25% of the compensation amount - The issue cannot be reagitated. (Para 12)
(b) Administration of justice - Conditional suspension of sentence - Non compliance of the condition has adverse effect on the continuance of suspension of sentence - Vacation of suspension of sentence justified. (Para 13, 18, 19)
(c) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 148 (as amended) - Section 148 shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against order of conviction and sentence for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even when criminal complaints were filed prior to the amendment i.e. prior to 01.09.2018. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of appellant No.3, M/s. Bhoomi Infrastructure Co., now known as GLM Infratech Private Limited. Respondent No.1, Virender Gandhi, who was also a partner of the Firm retired with respect of which Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.11.2013 was entered into. A cheque No.665643 dated 31.03.2014 drawn on Canara Bank amounting to Rs.45,84,915/-was issued by the appellant to respondent No.1 against the part payment of the retirement dues. Similarly, 63 other cheques were issued by the appellants in favour of respondent arising out of the same transaction. On 06.04.2015, respondent No.1 deposited cheque No.665643 in his Bank that is Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sector-11, Panchkula. The cheque was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 07.04.2015 with the remarks “funds insufficient”. Other 63 cheques were also dishonoured.
Complaints were filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants under Section 138 of the NI Act. In all 28 complaints were filed. The Judicial Magistrate convicted appellant Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay jointly and severally an amount equal to the amount involved in the present case i.e. cheque amount plus 1% of this amount as interest as well as litigation expenses.
The appellants were convicted in all 28 cases and the total amount to be deposited under the order of the Appellate Court was, in all cases, Rs.9,40,24,999/-. The appellants were granted time to deposit the amount. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the part of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the said Court has imposed a condition to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation while suspending the sentence.
The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellants and other connected petitions.
Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in view of the non-compliance of its order directed the appellants to surrender in the trial court within four days which was not complied. Another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The 28 petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in impugned order.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The order of conditional suspension of sentence is contingent upon the non-compliance of the specified condition. Failure to fulfill the condition, such as not depositing the required amount, has a direct adverse effect on the continuance of the suspension, which can lead to its vacation (!) (!) (!) .
The applicability of the amended section related to deposit conditions (Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) is considered to be prospective, even in cases where the complaint was filed prior to the amendment. The amendment aims to prevent delays caused by appeals and stays, thereby facilitating quicker enforcement of compensation orders (!) .
When a suspension of sentence is granted on a condition, non-compliance with that condition provides sufficient grounds for the court to declare the suspension as vacated. This principle applies regardless of whether the order was passed by the trial court or the appellate court, and it is within the jurisdiction of the appellate court to decide on such non-compliance (!) (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that non-deposit of the specified percentage of the compensation or fine, as directed, results in the automatic vacating of the suspension of sentence. The failure to comply with such conditions is viewed as a serious breach that justifies the vacation of the suspension (!) (!) (!) .
The legal provisions and amendments aim to ensure speedy disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the courts have emphasized that the discretion to impose deposit conditions is generally mandatory when such conditions are prescribed, especially to prevent delays and uphold the integrity of cheque transactions (!) (!) .
The courts have dismissed challenges to the conditions imposed for suspension, affirming that the non-compliance with deposit conditions warrants the vacation of the suspension and subsequent surrender or enforcement actions (!) (!) .
The judgment clarifies that the non-compliance with suspension conditions, such as failure to deposit the mandated amount within the specified period, is sufficient to vacate the suspension, and the courts are justified in taking such actions to uphold procedural integrity (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal stance is that failure to adhere to the conditions for suspension, particularly regarding deposit of the specified amount, results in the automatic vacating of the suspension order, and courts are within their rights to enforce this principle to ensure compliance and justice (!) (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively emphasize the importance of strict compliance with conditions attached to suspension orders, especially deposit requirements, and affirm that non-compliance leads to the automatic vacation of the suspension of sentence.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These appeals have been filed against a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.09.2019 dismissing 28 petitions filed by the appellants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are:
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of appellant No.3, M/s. Bhoomi Infrastructure Co., now known as GLM Infratech Private Limited. Respondent No.1, Virender Gandhi, who was also a partner of the Firm retired with respect of which Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.11.2013 was entered into. A cheque No.665643 dated 31.03.2014 drawn on Canara Bank amounting to Rs.45,84,915/-was issued by the appellant to respondent No.1 against the part payment of the retirement dues. Similarly, 63 other cheques were issued by the appellants in favour of respondent arising out of the same transaction. On 06.04.2015, respondent No.1 deposited cheque No.665643 in his Bank that is Karnataka Bank Ltd., Sector-11, Panchkula. The cheque was dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 07.04.2015 with the remarks “funds insufficient”. Other 63 cheques were also dishonoured.
3. Respondent No.1 sent the statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) on 06.05.2015. Complaints were filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panchkula. In all 28 complaints were filed. The complaints were decided by Judicial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 30.10.2018 holding the appellant Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, who were accordingly convicted. By order dated 13.11.2018 the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay jointly and severally an amount equal to the amount involved in the present case i.e. cheque amount plus 1% of this amount as interest as well as litigation expenses.
4. The appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 30.10.2018 and sentence dated 30.11.2018 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Panchkula. In the appeal the appellants had filed an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence. The learned trial court has suspended the sentence of the appellants by order dated 13.11.2018 for 30 days. The Appellate Court vide order dated 01.12.2018 entertained the appeal and suspended the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with one surety in the like amount and also subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court in favour of the complainant. The appellants were directed to deposit the amount within four weeks by way of demand draft in the name of the Court.
5. The appellants were convicted in all 28 cases and the total amount to be deposited under the order of the Appellate Court was, in all cases, Rs.9,40,24,999/-. The appellants preferred an application seeking extension of time to deposit the amount of 25% of the compensation amount. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application on 19.12.2018 granting time to deposit the amount till 28.01.2019. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the part of the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the said Court has imposed a condition to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation while suspending the sentence.
6. The High Court vide its judgment dated 24.04.2019 dismissed the petition of the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and other connected petitions. The appellants preferred Special Leave Petition(Criminal) Nos.4948-4975/2019 before this Court against the judgment dated 24.04.2019 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
7. This Court vide its judgment dated 29.05.2019 dismissed the criminal appeals arising out of the SLPs(Criminal).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
