Suspension of sentence of fine with/without conditions depends on facts of each case and nature of the offence: SC

Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the respondent’s suspension of sentence by single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., said that while suspending sentence, especially sentence of fine, Appellate Court can impose conditions; however, whether the suspension of sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional depends on the facts of each case and especially the nature of the offence. However, the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under Penal Code, 1860 and cognate legislations.

It was said that the Appellate Courts must also keep in mind that the conditions imposed while suspending sentence of fine, should not be such that they are impossible to comply with, for such condition may amount to defeating the appellant’s right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the instant case, the respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/419 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each offence. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.95,00,000. In default of the payment of the fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 21 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The respondent preferred an appeal against conviction before the Delhi High Court and by the impugned order the sentence was suspended by the Single Judge of Delhi High Court. A further condition was imposed on the respondent of not leaving the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court in 2018 issued notice taking into note that the respondent had not deposited the fine and issued direction in respect for the same. Consequently, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000.

Counsel for CBI argued that what was suspended under the impugned order is the substantive sentence of 7 years. As the respondent has paid only a sum of Rs.15,00,000 out of the total fine amount of Rs.95,00,000 and as the direction to pay a fine has not been suspended under the impugned order, the respondent will have to be taken into custody for undergoing sentence imposed in default of payment of a fine. It was further argued that the High Court could not have granted an unconditional stay of the order directing payment of a fine of Rs.95,00,000.

Counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the entire sentence, including the sentence of fine, has been suspended by the impugned order. He submitted that the substantive sentence and the sentence in default of fine are limited period sentences. As the appeal against conviction is not likely to be heard in the near future, the High Court has rightly suspended the sentence.

Perusing the contentions, the Court stated that the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC¹ is vested in the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal against the order of conviction. On a plain reading of Section 389(1), the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the execution of a sentence or order appealed against. If the appellant/accused is in confinement, there is a power vesting in the Appellate Court to release him on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal.

The Court noted that Section 64 of IPC uses the expression ‘offender is sentenced to a fine’. Moreover, the fine is one of the five punishments provided in Section 53, IPC. Thus, it is evident that the direction to pay a fine issued against the convicted accused is also a sentence. Under Section 64, the Court is empowered to direct that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a specific term as directed therein. Therefore, there can be a sentence of fine and a further sentence in default of compliance with the sentence of fine.

The Court further pointed out that 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 Section 389(1) of the CrPC.

Perusing the impugned order, the Court pointed out that it was clearly mentioned 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. Furthermore, the 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.46,00,000, and the Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.95,00,000/. “The order notes that the sentence imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment and payment of fine. Therefore, on a plain reading of the impugned order, the argument of learned ASG that the sentence of the fine was not suspended cannot be accepted”.

Emphasising on the Appellate Court’s power to suspend sentence of fine with or without conditions based on facts of case and nature of offence, the Court gave an example when there is a sentence of fine imposed while convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, depending upon the facts of the case, the Appellate Court may impose a condition of depositing the fine amount or part thereof while suspending the sentence. However, the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under the IPC and cognate legislations.

Considering the facts of the instant case, the Court pointed out that the total sentence, including substantive sentence and sentence in default of fine, will be imprisonment for 8 years and 9 months. Considering the huge pendency of criminal appeals triable by a Single Judge and considering the limited period sentence, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order passed way back on 29-9-2016. Hence the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially when the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000. The deposit of Rs.15,00,000 was directed to be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine.

CASE DETAILS

Citation:
Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024

Appellants :
Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondents :
Ashok Sirpal

Advocates who appeared in this case

For Petitioner(s):
Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. Miss Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Miss Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Miss Nikita Capoor, Adv.

For Respondent(s):
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sivani Reddy, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR