Condition To Deposit An Amount While Suspending Sentence Of Fine Should Not Be Impossible For Accused To Comply With: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the condition to deposit an amount while suspending the sentence of fine should not be impossible for an accused to comply with as the same could be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court which suspended the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the accused. The CBI had argued that only the substantive sentence of imprisonment was suspended, and not the fine. However, the Court clarified that the High Court was conscious of the embezzlement allegations and only then suspended both the sentence of imprisonment and payment of fine.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “However, the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under the IPC and cognate legislations. 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. The Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, it 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 Article 21 of the Constitution.”
ASG KM Nataraj represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the respondents.
The sentence was suspended under Section 389 of the CrPC (Corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 419 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
The Bench remarked, “While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions. Whether the order of suspension of the sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional depends on the facts of each case and especially the nature of the offence.”
The Court clarified that while convicting an accused, if a direction was issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction could be suspended in the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC while referring to its decision in Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand (2018) where in it was held, “We, however, make it clear that the appellate court while exercising power under Section 389 CrPC can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine without any condition or with conditions. There are no fetters on the power of the appellate court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC. The appellate court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “In the facts of the case, the total sentence, including the substantive sentence and the 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 the limited period sentence, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order passed way back on 29th September 2016.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 819)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG KM Nataraj; Advocates Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Veer Vikrant Singh, Sharath Nambiar, Nalin Kohli, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Parantap Singh, Indira Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma, Vatsal Joshi, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Chitransh Sharma, Satvika Thakur, Yogya Rajpurohit, Aayush Saklani, Tanmay Mehta and Nikita Capoor; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu; AOR Rahul Gupta; Advocates Deepak Sharma and Sivani Reddy