SC Upholds Bombay HC Order Cancelling Bail Of Cheque Bounce Convicts For Violating Undertaking Given Before It
The Supreme Court has upheld the cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to cheque bounce convicts for violating the previous undertakings.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that, "The fact remains that the total amount agreed to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High Court dated 20.03.2019 the revisionists being in default in payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn without reference to the Court."
Advocate Atul Babasaheb Dakh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the Respondent.
The case involved a petitioner who, despite multiple directives from the court, exhibited a nonchalant attitude towards fulfilling financial obligations, leading to the cancellation of bail and suspension of sentence.
The petitioner and an intervenor faced convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and were sentenced to ten months with a cumulative liability of Rs. 5 crores. Despite settlement agreements, the petitioner failed to comply with payment schedules, resulting in repeated court interventions.
The High Court cancelled the bail and sentence suspension due to non-compliance. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that he fulfilled his share of the settlement. The intervenor claimed a partnership ratio, alleging fraudulent alteration of the settlement terms.
The Apex Court noted that the complainant had been litigating since 2007, and had not reaped the fruits of any of the previous judgments. In that context, it was said that, "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."
Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed the appellant and intervenor to surrender within four weeks to undergo the sentence.
Cause Title: Satish P Bhatt vs The State of Maharashtra
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh and Advocate Bitu Kumar Singh
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Raavi Sharma, AOR Siddharth Sangal, Advocates Richa Mishra, Chirag Sharma, Nilanjani Tandon, Harshita Agrawal, AOR Manoj K. Mishra, Advocates Jaya Karan, Vishal, Madhulika.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
