Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 95,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, was to undergo simple imprisonment for 21 months – However, the High Court suspended the sentence, on the respondent furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety – Correctness: Held: While convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction can be suspended in the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of s.389 – Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions – However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it – Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Art.21 – In the impugned order, it was clearly mentioned therein that the respondent's sentence stands suspended pending the hearing of the appeal subject to compliance of furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- – High Court was conscious of the fact that as the embezzlement alleged against the respondent and other accused persons was to the tune of Rs. 46 lakhs, the Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 95 lakhs – Sentence imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment and payment of fine – Thus, it cannot be said that the sentence of the fine was not suspended – Total sentence, including substantive sentence and sentence in default of fine, will be imprisonment for eight years and nine months – Considering the huge pendency of criminal appeals triable by a Single Judge and considering the limited period sentence, not possible to find fault with the impugned order – Thus, interference with the impugned order not called for, especially when the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in this Court, which is to be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine. [Paras 6-10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.