2019 (12) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspension of sentence pending the appeal - grouse of the petitioner-accused is that bare perusal of Section 389 Cr.P.C, nowhere suggests that Appellate Court while considering the application for suspension of sentence, is necessarily required to issue direction to the person in appeal for depositing amount of compensation - HELD THAT - True, it is that bare perusal of Section 389 of Cr.P.C, which is reproduced hereinabove, nowhere suggests that Appellate Court while considering the application for suspension of sentence cannot order for suspension of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court without calling upon the person seeking suspension of sentence to deposit amount of compensation, if any, awarded by the learned court below. Solely with a view to mitigate the hardship of complainant, especially in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 143 of the Act has been incorporated, whereby Courts can order accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount during the pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act - Aforesaid provision of law has been incorporated with a view to provide interim relief to the complainant, who is unnecessarily compelled to approach the Court of law for realization of his/her own money. Similarly, the appeal is statutory right of a person and such right cannot be allowed to be defeated merely on account of nondeposit of compensation amount, if any, awarded by the learned trial Court. Hon ble Apex Court in case titled DILIP S DAHANUKAR VERSUS KOTAK MAHINDRA CO LTD ANR 2007 (4) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that power of Court to suspend the sentence with regard to realization of compensation is totally different from its power to issue direction for realization of fine. Though, in the aforesaid judgment Hon ble Apex Court has categorically held that Appellate Court while suspending the sentence, is entitled to put appellant on terms, but an order may not be passed which the appellant cannot comply with, resulting him being sent to the prison. Careful perusal of aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court, suggests that Appellate Court while suspending the sentence, if any, imposed by the trial Court though is not totally barred or estopped from directing the appellant to deposit the amount, but such amount should be reasonable - In the case at hand, while suspending the sentence imposed by the trial Court has ordered for deposit of 40% (₹ 1,16,000) of the compensation amount awarded by the learned trial Court, which is definitely on higher side. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Court can direct the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation while considering the application for suspension of sentence.
2. The reasonableness of the amount of compensation directed to be deposited by the appellant.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appellate Court's Authority to Direct Deposit of Compensation:

The petitioner-accused was aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing the deposit of ?1,16,000 as part realization of the compensation. The petitioner contended that Section 389 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Appellate Court to direct the deposit of compensation while considering an application for suspension of sentence. The court noted that Section 389 Cr.P.C. allows the Appellate Court to suspend the execution of the sentence pending appeal and release the appellant on bail or bond. However, the section does not explicitly prevent the court from directing the deposit of compensation. The court emphasized that such orders are typically issued to balance equities and mitigate hardships to the complainant, especially in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where interim relief is necessary.

2. Reasonableness of the Compensation Amount:

The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., which highlighted that while the Appellate Court can impose conditions for the suspension of sentence, the conditions must be reasonable and not impossible for the appellant to comply with. The judgment emphasized the need for a balance between the rights of the victim and the accused, and the importance of not imposing harsh conditions that could lead to imprisonment solely due to non-compliance with compensation deposit directives.

In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge directed the deposit of 40% of the compensation amount, which the court found to be on the higher side. The court, therefore, modified the order, reducing the deposit requirement to 25% of the compensation amount, to be paid within four weeks.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that while the Appellate Court has the authority to direct the deposit of compensation during the suspension of sentence, such directives must be reasonable. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was modified to reduce the deposit amount to 25% of the compensation awarded by the trial court. The petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.