SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S. S. DESWAL & ORS. versus VIRENDER GANDHI & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S. S. DESWAL & ORS.
v.
VIRENDER GANDHI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1936-1963 of 2019)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
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
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 395
395
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
condition, non-compliance of the condition has adverse effect on
the continuance of suspension of sentence. The Court which has
sus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.