N. Ramamurthy vs State by Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Bengaluru

HELD: 1.1 It is imperative to restore the applications for consideration afresh for the fundamental reason that the approach of the High Court in dealing with the applications made on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 CrPC had apparently been from a wrong angle and on two major misconceptions: One, that the High Court assumed as if the sentences awarded to the appellant for different offences are to run consecutively i.e., one after another and, while taking sum total of the sentences so awarded, the High Court has proceeded as if the accused appellant has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for a whopping 45 years. Such an assumption by the High Court had been fundamentally incorrect and the High Court, obviously, omitted to notice that the trial court had specifically ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Secondly, the High Court has proceeded to refer to the principles governing the consideration of the prayer for suspension of the operation of the order of conviction, although the prayer in the present matter had only been for suspension of execution of sentence. [Para 6][1129-A-D]

1.2 When the High Court assumed that the appellant is to serve 45 years in prison, its consideration of the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence took entirely different dimensions. The applications ought to have been considered while keeping in view the fact that with concurrent running of sentences, the maximum period for imprisonment envisaged by the order of the trial court is 7 years. Of course, there are default stipulations in the order of the trial court but in any case, and by any method of calculation, it cannot be said that the appellant has been ordered to serve out 45 years in prison. The length of imprisonment to be served under an impugned order of sentencing has obvious bearing on the consideration of the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of an appeal or revision; and when there had been fundamental error as regards such an over-bearing factor, the prayer of the appellant requires reconsideration after removal of this error. [Para 7][1129-D-G]

1.3 It is found from the impugned order that even after taking note of the principles aforesaid, the High Court has apparently missed out the substratum and has not applied the applicable legal principles to the case at hand. The other grounds urged on behalf of the appellant for suspension of execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment are not elaborated, essentially for the reason that this prayer under Section 389 CrPC is to be adequately examined and considered by the High Court with reference to the record and all the surrounding factors; and, in the present case, when consideration of such a prayer is found vitiated for an erroneous approach, the High Court need to consider the prayer afresh. This Court has neither pronounced on the merits of the applications moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of execution of sentence nor have made any observations relating to the merits of the appeal pending in the High Court and the entire matter is left open for consideration of the High Court in accordance with law. [Para 8.1, 9, 10] [1130-G-H; 1131-A-C]

1.4 The impugned orders by the High Court are set aside; and the applications are restored for consideration afresh, expeditiously. [Para 11]

Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (2007) 2 SCC

574 : [2007] 1 SCR 1143 - held inapplicable.

K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC

584:[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 224 - referred to.