Case Title: Satish P. Bhatt v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.7433 of 2019)
Decided on: 3rd January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Facts of the Case
The case centered around a petitioner who, despite numerous court directives, demonstrated a lackadaisical approach to meeting financial obligations, leading to the revocation of bail and suspension of sentence. Both the petitioner and an intervenor faced convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and were sentenced to ten months with a combined liability of Rs. 5 crores. Despite settlement agreements, the petitioner failed to adhere to payment schedules, prompting repeated court interventions. The High Court annulled the bail and sentence suspension due to non-compliance. The appellant contested this decision, asserting that he had fulfilled his part of the settlement. The intervenor, claiming a partnership ratio, alleged fraudulent alteration of the settlement terms.
Issue
The central issue in this case is the complainant’s extended legal struggle since 2007 and the non-realization of intended benefits from previous court orders, leading to the Supreme Court directing the appellant and intervenor to surrender for sentence within four weeks.
Legal Provision
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for criminal provision regarding a cheque bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court has affirmed the annulment of the suspension of sentence and bail for individuals convicted of cheque bounce, citing a breach of previous commitments. Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, on the matter, noted that despite the High Court’s order on March 20, 2019, the convicts failed to fulfill the agreed-upon payment. Consequently, the interim protection provided through bail and sentence suspension would be revoked automatically, without the need for court intervention.
The Supreme Court observed that the complainant had been engaged in litigation since 2007 and had not yet benefited from the outcomes of previous judgments. In this context, it was highlighted that “the complainant has still not received not only the benefits of the order dated 03.07.2018 but also of the Trial Court’s order dated 26.08.2011. Despite being entitled to a higher amount as per the Trial Court’s order, he agreed to accept a significantly lesser sum. He has been involved in litigation for almost 16 years since 2007.” Consequently, the Supreme Court instructed the appellant and intervenor to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad
