LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2020 INSC 21Decided 8 Jan 2020
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1936-1963 of 2019
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

The appellants, partners of a firm, had issued 64 cheques to a retiring partner as part-payment of his retirement dues; all the cheques bounced, leading to 28 criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and their conviction. While their appeal against conviction was pending, the appellate court suspended their sentence on condition that they deposit 25% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, which they failed to do. When the trial court treated the suspension as vacated for non-compliance, the appellants challenged this through repeated rounds of litigation up to the High Court and then the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that this very point had already been decided against the same appellants in their own earlier case (Surinder Singh Deswal, 2019) which held that Section 148 of the NI Act, requiring a minimum 20-25% deposit of the compensation as a condition for suspending sentence, applies even to complaints filed before the 2018 amendment came into force, since it does not take away any vested right of appeal. The Court also held that non-compliance with a condition attached to suspension of sentence validly results in the suspension being treated as vacated, and distinguished the appellants' reliance on the later G.J. Raja case (which dealt with the separate, non-retrospective Section 143A on interim compensation at the trial stage, not Section 148 at the appellate stage).

Lesson Learnt

In cheque-bounce appeals, an appellate court can validly require a convicted person to deposit a percentage of the compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence, and this applies even to complaints filed before the relevant 2018 amendment; failing to comply with that condition can result in losing the benefit of suspension altogether.

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