9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1290 - SC - Indian LawsDeposit the fine amount awarded - suspension of sentence of the appellant - appellant relying on Section 357 subSection (2) of Criminal Procedure Code submits that since the appellant has already filed an appeal before the High Court, the amount of fine imposed by the trial court automatically stands stayed till the decision of the appeal - whether by virtue of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant? Held that - Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. contemplated utilisation of fine imposed in certain circumstances as compensation to be paid to victim. Subsection (2) engrafted an embargo that such payment shall not be made till the period allowed for appeal has elapsed or if the appeal is filed, till the same is decided. Legislature was conscious that compensation paid if utilised, there may not be appropriate measures to recover the said amount utilised from victim to whom the compensation is paid hence embargo in payment has been engrafted in subsection (2). Thus at best subsection (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is a provision which differs or withholds the utilisation of the amount of compensation awarded till the limitation of appeal elapses or if filed till it is decided. The provision in no manner stays the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal - Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.. The Appellate Court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine. Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. was not attracted in the present case since there was no direction of payment of any compensation out of the fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence. Section 357 Cr.P.C.(2) comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation utilising the fine imposed as sentence under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. or compensation as directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. is made - Present being neither a case of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. nor Section 357(3), subsection( 2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is clearly not applicable and the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are without any substance. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court. 2. Applicability of Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in staying the payment of fine during the pendency of an appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) of five years with a fine of ?25,000 under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment but directed the appellant to deposit the fine amount. The appellant contested this part of the order, arguing that the fine should be automatically stayed under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Applicability of Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in staying the payment of fine during the pendency of an appeal: The appellant argued that under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the fine imposed by the trial court should be stayed until the decision of the appeal. The appellant's counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd.* to support this claim. Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. pertains to the payment of compensation, not the fine, and thus, the High Court's direction to deposit the fine was valid. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 357 Cr.P.C., which deals with the order to pay compensation. Section 357(1) allows the court to apply the fine towards compensation for various purposes. Section 357(2) states that if the fine is imposed in a case subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the appeal period has elapsed or, if an appeal is presented, before the decision of the appeal. The Court clarified that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. prohibits the payment of compensation from the fine until the appeal is decided, but it does not stay the sentence of fine itself. The Court referenced *Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd.*, where the High Court's direction to deposit part of the fine as a condition for suspending the sentence was upheld. The Court distinguished the present case from *Dilip S. Dahanukar*, noting that the latter dealt with compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., not the fine as part of the sentence. The Court also referred to judgments from the Karnataka High Court and other High Courts, which supported the view that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. does not stay the imposition of the fine but only the payment of compensation. The Court concluded that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. was not applicable in the present case as there was no direction for payment of compensation from the fine. Therefore, the High Court's order directing the appellant to deposit the fine was valid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. does not stay the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court during the pendency of an appeal. The High Court's direction to deposit the fine amount was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
