9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. 1. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the orders dated 24.2.2020 and 25.9.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2020, (Satish Chandra Sharma Vs. State of UP) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Hapur Kotwali, Distt. Hapur arising out of judgment and order dated 24.1.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Complaint Case No. 808 of 2008 (Hitesh Kumar Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Hapur granted bail to the applicant on the condition of deposit 35% of the amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- imposed as fine by the learned Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a very poor and he is not in a position to deposit such a huge amount. He further submits that entire conspiracy hatched to grab the agricultural land of father of applicant against which a civil suit is also pending. The court below has not considered the amount of fine, which is unreasonable and ought to have been reduced. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgement and order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 22.03.2018 is against the statutory provision of law and realization of fine ought to have been stayed by the Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal specially when the bail has been granted to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is compelled to deposit 1/4th of the amount of fine about ₹ 18,75,000/- for being released on bail, the filing of appeal would be a futile exercise, which would be an abuse of the process of the court and as such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court as a pre-condition for being released on bail is unreasonable, unjust and onerous. On the contrary, learned AGA for the State has contended that apart from the sentence and imprisonment, fine has also been imposed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has rightly directed to deposit 1/4th of amount of the fine as a pre-condition for being released on bail and the Appellate Court is well within its power to impose condition for suspension of sentence. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section. Section 389 CrPC provides suspension of sentence pending the appeal and release of appellant on bail, which is quoted herein below :- Section 389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail. (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,- (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........The purpose of imposition of fine and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must be considered having the relevant factors therefor in mind. It may be compensating the person in one way or the other. The amount of compensation sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way may be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the purpose being that whereas the power to impose fine is limited and direction to pay compensation can be made for one or the other factors enumerated out of the same; but sub-Section (3) of Section 357 does not impose any such limitation and thus, power thereunder should be exercised only in appropriate case, Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a judge. 39. .............If a fine is to be imposed under the Act, the amount of which in the opinion of the Parliament would be more than sufficient to compensate the complainant; can it be said, that an unreasonable amount should be directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal sureties residing in State of Bihar each to a like amount appears excessively onerous and in the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. Similarly, in the case of Sheikh Ayub Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 457, the condition for furnishing surety bond of ₹ 50,000/- and direction to deposit ₹ 2,50,000/- alleged to be the amount misappropriate by the accused was also held to be onerous and amounting to denial of bail. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the Appellate Court may impose a condition while suspending the sentence, however, the power of imposing conditions is discretionary and the Court while suspending the sentence can always direct the applicant to deposit fine in the court but the amount of such condition must not be unreasonable, onerous and unjust so as to deprive the applicant from being released on bail. Admittedly, in the present case, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in the circumstances of the case, he would be ordinarily granted bail during the trial in view of the facts that the offence is bailable. Even during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
