In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2024-SC- Behaviour of petitioner stands as testament to how an individual’s nonchalant attitude towards Court orders can undermine judicial efficacy: SC asks NI Act accused to pay Rs 5 lakh to complainant, confirms HC order cancelling suspension of bail
Justices Vikram Nath & Rajesh Bindal [03-01-2024]

Read Order:  SATISH P. BHATT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 10, 2024: In a cheque bounce case, the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal challenging a High Court order cancelling suspension of bail passed against a man for not complying with his undertaking to make the payment to the complainant.

“The facts of this case bring to light a situation marked by a persistent disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal and financial obligations,” the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Rajesh Bindal said.

The appellant, in this case, and the intervenor were Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Vice- Chairman of a company by the name of M/s.Astral Glass Private Limited (AGPL). The company AGPL as also the appellant and the intervenor were convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) vide judgment of the Trial Court in three separate cases and were awarded sentence of ten months with total liability of Rs 5 crore cumulatively in all the three cases.

Three appeals jointly filed by the appellant, the intervenor as also AGPL were dismissed by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred three revisions before the High Court. The appellant and the intervenor filed an undertaking based on a settlement according to which it was agreed that a total sum of Rs 4,63,50,000 would be paid to the complainant-respondent no.2. Out of the said amount Rs 73,50,000 had already been paid before the appeal Court. As such, the remaining amount of Rs 3,90,00,000 was to be paid in instalments.

Based on the undertaking, the Single Judge of the High Court passed an order on the same day and granted interim protection by suspending the sentence of imprisonment and they were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond.

As per the undertaking, Rs 2 crores was to be paid on or before 30^th September, 2018, in addition to Rs 25 lakhs which was paid on the date of passing of the order. Remaining amount of Rs 1 crore 65 lakhs was to be paid on or before 15^th March, 2019. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the High Court on 20^th March, 2019 by which time they had paid only Rs 82 lakhs. Further time was sought to pay the balance amount. The High Court extended the time for payment of Rs 1,69,10,000 and further provided that if the said amount was not paid then the order granting bail and also suspending the sentence shall stand cancelled forthwith.

The present appellant Satish P.Bhatt filed a criminal application in the pending revision on 16th April, 2019 stating that he had paid his share and, therefore, he may be absolved of the charges and acquitted. On the said application, notice was issued to the complainant but the matter kept on getting adjourned. The High Court passed the impugned order cancelling the suspension of sentence and bail.

After going through the undertaking and subsequent Orders, the Bench noticed that the complainant was entitled to receive a total amount of Rs 4,63,50,000. The undertaking clearly mentioned that both of them would pay the amount equally as agreed by and between them and it further contained a stipulation that in default of the payment by either of them as per their agreed share in the settlement, they shall be held liable and prosecuted as per law.

It was further clarified that the settlement between the two directors i.e. the appellant and the intervenor was inter se these two only and the complainant was not bound by the same. Complainant’s agreement or consent was only to the extent of accepting Rs 4,63,50,000 only. He was not a signatory to the agreement which was signed by the two parties.

“There is a protection provided by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 regarding stay of arrest, as a result of which the appellant and the intervenor have still not undergone the sentence. On the other hand, the complainant has still not reaped not only the fruits of the order dated 03.07.2018 but also of the order of the Trial Court dated 26.08.2011. He agreed to receive a much lesser amount than he was entitled to under the order of the Trial Court. He has been litigating since 2007 almost 16 years by now”, the Bench said.

Thus, without finding any illegality in the order passed by the High Court, the appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 5 lakh to be paid to the respondent No. 2 (Complainant) within four weeks. It was clarified by the Top Court that this amount of costs would not be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the respondent No.2 but would be in addition to it.