A legal system cannot be allowed to be frustrated by flagrant disregard for judicial directives and financial obligations, the Supreme Court has said while ordering two men to surrender within a month for serving their ten months’ jail term in a 16-year-old cheque bounce case.

SC said that there were repeated assurances doled out by the two men to pay the sum, but they kept committing defaults on one pretext or another.

A bench of Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal also imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on the chairman-cum-managing director and vice-chairman of a Maharashtra-based glass making company, clarifying that this money will not be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the complainant in the case but will be in addition to it.

The bench expressed its anguish at the fact that the two accused have remained protected from undergoing the jail term of 10 months awarded to them by the trial court in 2011 because of an undertaking by them to pay ₹4.63 crore to the complainant but the latter has failed to receive the amount though he has been litigating since 2007.

The court noted that there were repeated assurances doled out by the two men to pay the sum, but they kept committing defaults on one pretext or another. “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,” lamented the bench in its judgment on Wednesday.

Dismissing the petition filed by the accused against the 2019 order of the high court, the bench said that the high court was right in cancelling their bail and suspension of the jail term in view of the duo’s continued failure to fulfil their financial obligations.

The top court refused to go into the division of financial liability between the two accused, saying the settlement between them would have no bearing on the complainant’s right to receive his total money in terms of the settlement and the accused persons’ undertaking before the trial as well as high courts.

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 March 20, 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,” said the bench.

[Case reference: Satish P. Bhatt v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCCONLINE SC 16, Decided on: 03-01-2024]…