"Your Place Is In Jail": Supreme Court Slams Rajpal Yadav For Failing To Deposit ₹5 Crore

Home / Top Stories "Your Place Is In Jail": Supreme Court Slams Rajpal Yadav For Failing To Deposit ₹5 Crore X The case relates to Yadav’s failure to repay a loan, despite multiple undertakings given before the trial court and appellate forums. Yadav has moved Supreme Court against Delhi High Court upholding his conviction in seven cheque bounce cases, observing that repeated breaches of court undertakings did not warrant probation. The Supreme Court today came down heavily on Actor Rajpal Yadav for not complying with its directions to deposit ₹5 Crore in Cheque Bounce Cases against him while it had extended him the interim relief from surrendering. As a photocopy of demand draft of ₹50 lakhs was placed before court today by Yadav's counsel, CJI Surya Kant asked, "₹50 lakhs? Is this even genuine?" As the complainant told court, "He is a film actor, he is acting here also..no respect for the institution..", Yadav's counsel interjected saying that the complainant were not poor. Hearing this, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, "Should we just give him what he deserves, a dismissal? This arrogance needs to be put in its right place..You should know when to open your mouth..Your place is in jail.." As the complainant argued that Yadav should be held liable for contempt, the CJI granting him a last opportunity ordered, "Let payment be made by tomorrow...list the matter day after tomorrow first item on board.." Notably, on September 8 the court had asked Yadav to deposit the sum within a day's time while granting him protection. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana had passed the order after the petitions filed by Yadav and his wife were orally mentioned by AoR Saurabh Trivedi. An SLP has been filed challenging the Delhi High Court's July decision upholding Bollywood actor' s conviction in multiple cheque bounce cases, refusing to interfere with the findings of the trial court and declining his plea for probation. The High Court observed that repeated breaches of undertakings and disregard for the judicial process disentitled him from seeking leniency. Recognising that Yadav may seek further legal remedies, the High Court had granted him two months' protection from the execution of the sentence to enable him to approach a higher court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Yadav and others challenging their conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. While affirming the conviction, the Court made a sharp observation on the sanctity of judicial proceedings, remarking: "Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor." The Court had noted that despite repeated opportunities, Yadav had failed to honour his commitments to the complainant and had repeatedly defaulted on undertakings given before the courts. Refusing to extend the benefit of probation, Justice Sharma recorded that the actor had shown little regard for the judicial process. Court also took note of a statement attributed to Yadav during the proceedings, observing that he had said he would "go to jail five more times" rather than pay the complainant. The Court treated the remark as indicative of his conduct and unwillingness to comply with legal obligations. While maintaining the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence imposed upon the actor. It directed that Yadav shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment in each of the seven cheque bounce cases, with all sentences running concurrently. The Court also imposed a fine of ₹1.05 crore in each of the seven cases. Court had also modified the sentence imposed upon Yadav's wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, who was also facing proceedings in the matter. She was directed to pay a fine of ₹5.51 lakh in each of the seven cheque bounce cases. In the event of default, she will undergo three months' simple imprisonment, with all default sentences to run concurrently. The petitions arose from multiple prosecutio

Source: Original reporting via LawBeat