2024 (10) TMI 1330 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - substantive sentence of 7 years - embezzlement - HELD THAT - The power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC (Corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is vested in the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal against the order of conviction. On a plain reading of subsection (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. In case of offences covered by the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 389, there is a mandate to give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause in writing against such release before releasing a convicted person on bail. As stated earlier, the substantive sentence imposed on the respondent is rigorous imprisonment for seven years. In addition, there is a direction to pay a fine of Rs.95,00,000/-. Perusal of the impugned order shows that 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/, 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. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially when the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/in this Court. The deposit of Rs.15,00,000/shall be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the above modification. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/deposited by the respondent has been invested by the Registry in fixed deposit. Immediately after maturity of the existing fixed deposit, the Registry shall transfer the amount of Rs.15,00,000/with interest accrued thereon to the Delhi High Court. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of sentence including fine under Section 389 of the CrPC.
2. Interpretation of Section 64 of the IPC regarding payment of fine and imprisonment in default.
3. Consideration of conditions for suspension of sentence of fine by the Appellate Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the issue of suspension of sentence, including a fine, under Section 389 of the CrPC. The respondent was convicted for various offences and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court suspended the sentence, including the fine, subject to certain conditions. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the fine was not suspended, and the respondent should be taken into custody for defaulting on the fine payment. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the entire sentence, including the fine, was suspended by the High Court. The Court referred to Section 389 of the CrPC, which allows the suspension of sentences pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail.

2. The interpretation of Section 64 of the IPC was crucial in determining the consequences of non-payment of the fine. Section 64 empowers the Court to direct imprisonment in default of fine payment. The Court highlighted that the direction to pay a fine is considered a sentence, and failure to comply can result in additional imprisonment. The judgment referenced Sections 4 and 8(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, emphasizing the importance of fine as a punishment under Section 53 of the IPC.

3. The Court considered the conditions for suspending the sentence of a fine. It noted that the Appellate Court has the discretion to impose conditions based on the nature of the offence and individual case circumstances. The judgment emphasized that conditions should not be impossible for the appellant to fulfill, as it could impede the right to appeal and violate constitutional rights. In this case, the Court found no fault with the High Court's order of suspending the sentence, including the fine, and upheld the decision based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the suspension of sentence, interpretation of fine payment provisions, and considerations for imposing conditions on the suspension of a fine. The Court clarified the legal framework under the CrPC and IPC, ensuring a balanced approach to the enforcement of sentences and protection of appellant rights.