New Delhi: In Criminal Appeal No. 3635 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1406/2025], the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the appeal filed by M/s R A Santana Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 04.12.2024.
The dispute originated from the conviction of the respondent, Director of JMK Technology Pvt. Ltd., by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and directed payment of Rs. 8,65,91,420/- as compensation.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, while considering the respondent’s appeal, suspended the sentence subject to the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, in line with statutory requirements.
However, on failure to deposit the amount, the suspension order was recalled on 18.07.2024.
Aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court, which exempted him from making the mandatory deposit solely on the ground of financial incapacity, yet continued suspension of sentence.
The Supreme Court held that though personal liberty is paramount, when accused is granted liberty of suspension of sentence, the conditions have to be fulfilled and the High Court had erred in law in exempting the deposit of 20% of the amount as a condition for suspension of the sentence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the requirement of deposit.
Counsel for the petitioners:
Jay Savla, Sr. Adv.
Aman Madan, Adv.
Satyam Bhatia, Adv.
Shubham Bhatia, Adv.
Shivam Singh, Adv.
Renuka Sahu, AOR
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
