LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 838Decided 30 Jul 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2019
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit · Justice Vineet Saran

Background

A cheque-dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the appellant in 2016, over two dishonoured cheques totalling Rs. 35 lakh. In 2018, after the complaint was already pending, Parliament inserted a new Section 143A into the Act, allowing trial courts to order an accused to pay up to 20% of the cheque amount as "interim compensation" to the complainant even before guilt is proven, recoverable like arrears of land revenue. Relying on this new provision, the trial court ordered the appellant to pay 20% (later reduced to 15% by the Madras High Court) as interim compensation, even though the alleged offence had occurred years before Section 143A existed.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 143A creates a genuinely new liability and a new, coercive recovery mechanism against an accused who has not yet been found guilty, unlike post-conviction fine/compensation provisions (Sections 421 and 357 CrPC) which only operate after guilt is established. Applying settled principles on retrospective legislation (a law that creates new disabilities or obligations is presumed prospective unless Parliament says otherwise), and distinguishing its own earlier ruling that the related Section 148 (interim compensation pending appeal, post-conviction) applies retrospectively, the Court held Section 143A could not be invoked for offences committed before the provision was inserted on 1 September 2018. Since the alleged cheque dishonour here predated the provision, the orders of both the trial court and the High Court directing interim compensation were set aside, and the appellant's deposited money was ordered returned with interest.

Lesson Learnt

A new law that creates a fresh financial liability or exposes a person to coercive recovery before any finding of guilt generally cannot be applied to conduct that occurred before that law existed: courts presume such provisions operate only going forward unless Parliament clearly says otherwise.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case