9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auto renewal facility. In terms of the said order, the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/, which has been invested in a fixed deposit under the orders of this Court. SUBMISSIONS 3. Shri K M Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, pointed out that the finding against the respondent and coaccused by the Special Court is that there was an embezzlement of approximately a sum of Rs.46,00,000/. He pointed out that what is 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. Learned ASG relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 15 SCC 139 . He pointed out the interpretation put by this Court to Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the CrPC ). He relied upon what is held in paragraph 36 of the said decision. He urged that there is a power to suspend the fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under subsection (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended. (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. 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 subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er under Section 389 CrPC 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 CrPC. The appellate court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine. Thus, 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 subsection (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC. 7. Coming back to the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned therein 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/. 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
