In a significant ruling on enforcement under cheque dishonour law, the Delhi High Court has stepped in to examine whether a convicted accused can seek suspension of sentence without depositing even a part of the compensation mandated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially after repeatedly defying court directions and remaining absconding for over a year.
The case arose from a revision petition filed by a 68-year-old convict sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and directed to pay over Rs. 1.90 crore as compensation in a cheque dishonour case involving a nationalised bank. The conviction stemmed from a forged Letter of Credit used to obtain funds, followed by issuance of a cheque that was later dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. After losing before both the trial court and the Sessions Court, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence, citing age, illness, financial incapacity, and alleged legal infirmities in his conviction.
The bank opposed the plea, highlighting the petitioner’s consistent non-compliance, failure to deposit any amount, contradictory stands on settlement, and statutory presumptions operating against him under the NI Act.
Taking a stern view, the High Court underscored that Section 148 of the NI Act makes deposit of at least 20% of the compensation the rule, not the exception. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the Court held that financial incapacity alone cannot justify bypassing the statutory mandate, particularly where the convict’s conduct reflects repeated defaults and evasive behaviour.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had “not deposited a single penny,” despite earlier claiming willingness to pay Rs. 50 lakh, and observed that no “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” were shown to warrant suspension without deposit. Finding no prima facie illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed both applications seeking suspension of sentence.
Picture Source :
