Impossible Condition To Deposit Money Shouldn't Be Imposed To Suspend Sentence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (October 24) held that if a condition to deposit an amount imposed by the appellate court while suspending sentence of a convict is impossible for the appellant to comply with, it may defeat the right to appeal and violate appellant's right under Article 21 of the Constitution.“Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal by the CBI challenging the suspension of sentence granted by the Delhi High Court to a man convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. The respondent Ashok Sirpal was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, on January 27, 2016 under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 419 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 95 lakhs.Sirpal appealed his conviction before the Delhi HC. On September 29, 2016, the HC suspended his sentence on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety. This order was challenged by the CBI in the present appeal.On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court recorded that Sirpal had not deposited the fine amount of Rs. 95,00,000. The Court directed him to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs in three months, failing which his bail could be revoked. Sirpal deposited the said amount.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the CBI argued that the HC suspended only the substantive sentence of seven years but did not suspend the fine imposed by the trial court. Since Sirpal had deposited only Rs. 15 lakhs out of the Rs. 95 lakhs fine, he had to be taken into custody for failing to pay the fine. He submitted that there was no record that the HC suspended the fine.Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu for Sirpal contended that the HC suspended both the substantive sentence and the fine. He argued that the suspension was justified since the appeal against conviction would not be heard soon.Section 389 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) empowers the appellate court to suspend the sentence during the pendency of appeal. The Court said that a direction to pay a fine issued against the convicted accused is also a sentence. “Section 64 (sentence of imprisonment for nonpayment of fine) of IPC uses the expression 'offender is sentenced to a fine'. Moreover, the fine is one of the five punishments provided in Section 53. Thus, it is evident that the direction to pay a fine issued against the convicted accused is also a sentence”, the Court observed.The Court relied on the judgment in Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand which held that an appellate court can suspend both the sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of fine either conditionally or unconditionally.The Supreme Court noted that the Delhi HC, in its impugned order, clearly suspended Sirpal's sentence. The HC was aware that the conviction involved embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs and the trial court had imposed a fine of Rs. 95 lakhs, the Court noted. Therefore, the Court rejected the argument of the ASG that the fine was not suspended.The Supreme Court said that while suspending a sentence, particularly a sentence of fine, the appellate court can impose conditions based on the specifics of each case and the nature of the offence. For instance, in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court may require the accused to deposit the fine or part of it. However, for offences under the IPC or similar laws, the court's approach may vary. The Court emphasized that if the conditions imposed is impossible for the appellant to comply, it may defeat the right to appeal and violate Article 21 of the Constitution.In this case, the total sentence, including imprisonment and default for non-payment of the fine, amounted to eight years and nine months. The court considered the significant pendency of criminal appeals and the limited period sentence in this case. The court found no reason to interfere with the Delhi HC's order suspending the sentence, especially since Sirpal had already deposited Rs. 15 lakhs as directed by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order with a modification that the deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs by Sirpal be treated as a condition for suspending the fine. The Court further ordered that the amount be transferred to the Delhi HC after maturity and invested in a fixed...

Impossible Condition To Deposit Money Shouldn't Be Imposed To Suspend Sentence : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Impossible Condition To Deposit Money Shouldn't Be Imposed To Suspend Sentence : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers