Summary
The Court upheld vacation of suspension of sentence after the convicted cheque drawers failed to comply with a condition requiring deposit of 25% of compensation. The deposit direction had already been upheld in their earlier appeal and could not be reopened. The prospective operation of trial-stage interim compensation under Section 143A did not displace the different rule governing Section 148 at the appellate stage.
Issues
- Whether failure to comply with a compensation-deposit condition justified vacation of suspension of sentence.
- Whether the earlier deposit direction could be reopened by reliance on the prospective operation of Section 143A.
Held
- The deposit condition had already survived challenge before the Supreme Court. The same appellants could not reopen that concluded challenge in a second round concerning the consequences of non-compliance. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- A court granting conditional suspension of sentence may, after noting non-compliance, declare the suspension vacated. The appropriate decision rests with that appellate court; non-compliance supplies sufficient grounds, and the order here was within its jurisdiction. (¶¶ 13, 18, 19)
- The decision on prospective trial-stage interim compensation under Section 143A expressly distinguished Section 148, which operates after conviction. It did not undermine the earlier ruling applying Section 148 to these appeals although the complaints predated the amendment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The contrary Bombay High Court view could not be regarded as good law insofar as it concerned consequences of breach of the suspension condition. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The orders treating suspension of sentence as vacated for failure to deposit 25% of the compensation remained undisturbed.