Quote of the court
1. The facts of this case bring to light a situation marked by a persistent disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal and financial obligations. The behaviour of the Petitioner stands as a testament to how an individual’s nonchalant attitude towards financial responsibilities and court orders can undermine the essence of judicial efficacy.
Suspension of sentence cancelled
2. The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and suspension of sentence. This decision, reflecting the frustration of the legal system with repeated non-compliance, sets the stage for our deliberation.
Appeal
4. The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant as also the intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) vide order dated 03.07.2018 as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court on 03.07.2018 and recorded in the order of even date and further violated the condition contained in paragraph 3 of the order dated 20.03.2019 granting extension of time to comply.
Amount involved
16. The settlement between the two directors i.e. the appellant and the intervenor is inter se these two only and the complainant is not bound by the same. Complainant’s agreement or consent was only to the extent of accepting Rs.4,63,50,000/- only. He was not a signatory to the agreement which was signed by the two parties. Admittedly, both the appellant and the intervenor were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the company AGPL and, therefore, were convicted by the Trial Court and their conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court.
Since order of the High court not obeyed, no infirmity in cancellation of suspension of sentence
17. We are not inclined to go into this question as to who is to pay how much amount. The fact remains that the total amount agreed to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High Court dated 20.03.2019 the revisionists being in default in payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn without reference to the Court. We find no infirmity in the impugned order.
Appeal dismissed with cost of rupees five lakh payable to respondent
19. We, accordingly, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent No. 2 (Complainant) within four weeks from today. It is clarified that this amount of costs will not be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the respondent No.2 but will be in addition to it.
Party
SATISH P. BHATT …APPELLANT vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR …RESPONDENTS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.7433 OF 2019) – January 03, 2024 – 2024 INSC 16.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29002/29002_2019_8_1504_49160_Judgement_03-Jan-2024.pdf
Satish P. Bhatt vs. The Stat of Maharashtra – 29002_2019_8_1504_49160_Judgement_03-Jan-2024
Further study
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C – Default Bail and its Cancellation
PMLA: It is not necessary bail should be granted because the accused is woman
