Acquittal On Cheating, Forgery Charges Rules Out Basis For Conviction U/S 409 IPC: Delhi High Court Suspends Sentence

The Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of a company director convicted for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, holding that the very substratum of the conviction stood weakened after his acquittal on charges of cheating and forgery.

Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the order while hearing the director's appeal against conviction in a case alleging siphoning of funds to the tune of about ₹3 crore from a joint venture company.

The bench observed,

“...charge under Section 409 IPC is based on the allegations of the cheating and forgery and once the learned Trial Court held that the allegations of forgery and cheating have not been proved insofar as the bills of other two firms and minutes of the Board meetings are concerned, substratum for Section 409 IPC is knocked out and conviction under Section 409 IPC may not survive.”

Appellant had sought suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal.

Briefly put, he was convicted by the trial court for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment but was acquitted of offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 and 471 (forgery) IPC.

He contended that the conviction under Section 409 was inherently inconsistent with the acquittal on cheating and forgery, since the prosecution case of misappropriation was founded on allegations of forged documents and dishonest inducement which had not been proved.

Agreeing, the High Court observed that the charge under Section 409 IPC had been framed on allegations of siphoning funds by using forged bills and fabricated board resolutions. Once the trial court held that the allegations of forgery and cheating were not established, the Court said, “conviction of the appellant/applicant under Section 409 IPC may not be sustainable.”

It further relied on Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat (1999) where the Supreme Court held that when a convict is awarded a sentence for a fixed period and he avails his statutory right to appeal, the Appellate Court should consider suspension of sentence liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In the case at hand, the Court noted that the sentence imposed was for a fixed term of four years and that the appeal, admitted in 2025, was unlikely to be heard in the near future.

As such, the Court suspended the sentence.

Appearance: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr.H.S. Bhullar, Ms. Ekta Chandani, Mr.Sarthak Aggarwal, Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur, Ms.Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Ms. Yashi Gupta, Mr.Fateh Singh Bhullar and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Amit Tyagi PS EOW and SI Bijender ASI Hardesh Kumar PS Alipur. Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav M. Liberhan, Mr. Sumant Vyas, Ms. Uditi Bali, Mr. Karmanya Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Lavish Chandra, Ms. Yakshi Kataria, Ms. Shivani Varun, Ms. Adriti Gupta and Mr. Arun Singh Rawat, Advs. for complainants.

Case title: Sumeet Suri v State

Case no.: CRL.A. 1434/2025

Click here to read order