Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.s. 138, 143-A and 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.s. 389, 482 – Respondent No.1 retired from a firm – Various cheques were issued by the appellants in favour of respondent against the retirement dues – All the cheques were dishonored – Complaints were filed by the respondent No.1 against the appellants u/s. 138 N.I. Act – Judicial Magistrate held appellants Nos. 1 & 2 guilty and were accordingly convicted – In appeal, appellants filed application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence – The Appellate Court vide order dated 01.12.2018 suspended the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing of bail and also subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation awarded – Appellants were convicted and was ordered by the Appellate Court to deposit amount of Rs.9,40,24,999/- – Appellants filed application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. and sought quashing of part of the order which imposed a condition to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation – The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – The Supreme Court also dismissed the criminal appeals – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.07.2019 held that appellant having not complied with the direction to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation, the order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to have been vacated – Another petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants against the order dated 20.07.2019 was also dismissed – On appeal held: The order dated 01.12.2018 was upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore any submission questioning the order of the Appellate Court directing the suspension of the sentence subject to deposit of 25% of the compensation amount needs no further consideration – It is for the Appellate Court who has granted suspension of sentence to take call on non-compliance and take appropriate decision – What order is to be passed by the Appellate Court in such circumstances is for the Appellate Court to consider and decide – However, noncompliance of the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having vacated – The Appellate Court was right in taking the view that order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to have been vacated. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The Supreme Court having already upheld the order of the Appellate Court dated 01.12.2018 suspending the sentence subject to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation any submission questioning the order of the Appellate Court directing the suspension of sentence subject to deposit of 25% of the compensation amount needs no further consideration. By dismissal of the criminal appeals of the appellants on 29.05.2019 by this Court the challenge stands repelled and cannot be allowed to be reopened. [Para 12] [404-C]
2. The second round of litigation which was initiated by the appellant by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was against the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge by which he held that the appellant having not complied with the direction dated 01.12.2018 to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation, the order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to have been vacated. The order dated 20.07.2019 was an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on account of failure of the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation. The suspension of sentence on 01.12.2018 was subject to the condition of deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation, when the condition for suspension of sentence was not complied with, Additional Sessions Judge was right in taking the view that order of suspension of sentence shall be deemed to have been vacated. Challenge to order dated 20.07.2019 has rightly been repelled by the High Court by its elaborate and well considered judgment dated 10.09.2019. [Para 13] [404-D-F]
3. The High Court is right in its opinion that question No.2 as framed in Vivek Sahni’s case was not correctly considered. When suspension of sentence by the trial court is granted on a condition, non-compliance of the condition has adverse effect on the continuance of suspension of sentence. The Court which has suspended the sentence on a condition, after noticing noncompliance of the condition can very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due to non-compliance. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge declaring that due to noncompliance of condition of deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation, suspension of sentence stands vacated is well within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and no error has been committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in passing the order dated 20.07.2019. [Para 18] [406-G-H; 407-A]
4. It is for the Appellate Court who has granted suspension of sentence to take call on non-compliance and take appropriate decision. What order is to be passed by the Appellate Court in such circumstances is for the Appellate Court to consider and decide. However, non-compliance of the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having been vacated. [Para 19] [407-B]
G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana (2019) 10 SCALE 168; Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others v. Virender Gandhi (2019) 11 SCC 341 – referred to. Ajay Vinodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 4 Mah LJ 705 ; Vivek Sahni and another v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. CRM-M-29187 of 2019
(O&M) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.