LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 822Decided 4 Sept 2023
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2741-2742 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Pankaj Mithal

Background

The appellants were convicted by a Magistrate for dishonour of a cheque worth about Rs. 2.52 crore under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While their appeal against conviction was pending, the Sessions Court suspended their sentence but only on condition they deposit 20% of the compensation amount, relying on Section 148 of the NI Act; the High Court upheld this condition. The appellants argued that the courts below had wrongly treated the 20% deposit as an absolute, mandatory rule with no room for exceptions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that its earlier ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal (2019) required only a "purposive interpretation" of Section 148, meaning the 20% deposit condition is the normal rule but not an inflexible one: an appellate court can waive or reduce it in an exceptional case where imposing it would be unjust or would effectively deny the right of appeal, provided it records specific reasons for doing so. The Court rejected the complainant's argument that an accused must specifically plead for an exception before one can be considered, holding that when a person seeks unconditional suspension of sentence, the court must itself examine whether the case is an exceptional one. Since both the Sessions Court and High Court had wrongly treated the 20% deposit as an absolute rule, the Supreme Court set aside their orders and sent the matter back to the High Court to reconsider the revision petitions in light of this clarified legal position, while continuing the existing suspension of sentence in the interim.

Lesson Learnt

In cheque-bounce cases, the requirement to deposit at least 20% of the compensation before an appellate court suspends a sentence is the default rule, not an unbreakable one: a court can excuse or reduce it in genuinely exceptional circumstances if it records clear reasons, and an accused seeking unconditional relief does not need to specifically ask for this exception for the court to consider it.

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