Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav has suffered a major legal setback after the Delhi High Court upheld his conviction in the long-running cheque bounce case involving seven complaints. The court dismissed his appeal, refused to grant him the benefit of probation and observed that he had repeatedly failed to honour the commitments he made before the court to repay the complainant.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sentenced Yadav to three months’ simple imprisonment in each of the seven complaint cases. The court also directed him to pay a fine of ₹1.05 crore in each case.
However, the High Court has suspended the operation of the sentence for two months, allowing the actor time to pursue further legal remedies before a higher court. In its order, the court noted that an earlier bench had initially shown an inclination to give Yadav an opportunity to settle the matter after he expressed his willingness to repay the complainant.
Over the course of the proceedings, the court granted him multiple adjournments based on repeated assurances from both Yadav and his senior counsel that the dues would be cleared.
According to the judgment, despite being given several chances, Yadav failed to fulfil the undertakings he had made before the court. This eventually prompted the court to direct him to surrender. The High Court further observed that although the actor made partial payments during the proceedings and was granted suspension of his sentence on multiple occasions to facilitate an amicable settlement, the dispute was never fully resolved.
The court also recorded that Yadav had stated he would “rather go to jail five more times” than repay the complainant. Taking note of his conduct throughout the proceedings, the court declined to extend the benefit of probation. “This Court finds no infirmity in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court,” the bench observed, adding that it was not inclined to grant him the relief of probation.
The case stems from complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the offence of cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or other specified reasons. The litigation has remained pending for several years before reaching the Delhi High Court, which has now affirmed the conviction passed by the trial court and upheld by the Sessions Court.
By
