LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Ors. v. Virender Gandhi

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 688Decided 29 May 2019
Criminal Appeal Nos. 917-944 of 2019
Justice M.R. Shah · Justice A.S. Bopanna

Background

The appellants were convicted by a trial court for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment plus payment of the cheque amount with interest. While their appeals against conviction were pending before the first appellate court, that court (relying on the newly amended Section 148 of the Act, in force from September 2018) directed them to deposit 25% of the compensation/fine amount as a condition for suspending their sentence pending appeal. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their challenge to this deposit order, and they appealed further to the Supreme Court, arguing the deposit requirement should not apply to complaints filed before the 2018 amendment and that courts retained full discretion on whether to order any deposit at all.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which opens with "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure", confers on the appellate court the power to direct a convicted person to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence during the appeal, and this applies irrespective of when the original complaint was filed, since it governs appeals filed after the amendment came into force. It rejected the argument that this was merely discretionary or inapplicable to pre-amendment complaints, and found no error in the High Court's confirmation of the 25% deposit (above the statutory minimum) ordered by the first appellate court. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, though the Court used its Article 142 power to grant the appellants a further four weeks (beyond the statutory 60+30 day window) to make the deposit, given the large amount involved and their bona fide litigation.

Lesson Learnt

A person convicted of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the N.I. Act who wants their sentence suspended during an appeal can be required to deposit at least 20% of the compensation/fine amount first: this requirement applies regardless of when the original complaint was filed, so delaying payment by appealing is no longer cost-free.

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