LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/bijay-agarwal-vs-m-s-medilines-20241021/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Bijay Agarwal vs M/s Medilines

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 October 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4301 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
Citation
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890 : 2024 INSC 918
Acts & Sections
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890 : 2024 INSC 918
Issue for consideration
Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for suspending the sentence in an appeal filed against his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act.
Headnote

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer” – Trial Court found appellant guilty and accordingly was convicted and sentenced – Appellant filed criminal appeals before the Principal City Civil and Session Judge – The sentence was suspended with condition to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation – It is against the said direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount that the appellant approached the High Court, which culminated in the impugned common order dated 09.01.2024: Held: In the case of the position qua Section 143A, NI Act, merely because an officer of a company concerned is the authorised signatory of the cheque concerned by itself will not make such an officer ‘drawer of the cheque’ under Section 148, NI Act, so as to empower the Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 138, NI Act, to direct to deposit compensation of any sum under Section 148(1), of the NI Act – It is settled that an Appellate Court in an appeal against conviction under Section 138, NI Act, could not place a condition to deposit an amount invoking the power under Section 148(1), NI Act, mechanically without considering whether the case falls within exceptional circumstances – In view of the said exposition of law, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the aforesaid aspects as it would certainly be an exceptional circumstance to exempt the appellant who is not the ‘drawer’ of the cheque concerned to deposit the amount payable under Section 148(1) by an appellant who is the ‘drawer’ of the cheque – In the instant case, the High Court has failed to consider these crucial aspects in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in its various decisions while considering the application for suspension of sentence for the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act in the pending appeal – In view of the discussion, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the orders passed by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge stands quashed and set aside to the extent it put the condition to deposit of 20% of the fine amount payable. [Paras 16, 17, 18]

Keywords: Signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company · Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 · Suspension of sentence · Condition to deposit an amount out of fine or compensation · Exceptional circumstances

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment C.T. Ravikumar, J. Leave granted. On the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. 1. The captioned appeals by a special leave are directed against the impugned common order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition Nos. 13095 of 2023 and 13153 of 2023 respectively. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. In view of the factual background obtained in these cases, a question of seminal importance arises for consideration viz., “whether the si
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →