CASE NAME: Central Bureau of Investigation V. Ashok Sirpal
CASE NO.: Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024
DATED: October 24, 2024
QUORUM: Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This appeal involves a limited factual issue regarding the respondent, who was convicted on January 27, 2016, passed by the Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi, was convicted for crimes related to conspiracy and corruption punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). He received a seven-year sentence and a hefty fine of Rs. 95 lakhs, with additional imprisonment if the fine wasn’t paid.
The respondent appealed his conviction, and on September 29, 2016, the Delhi High Court suspended his sentence on the condition that he provided a bond and did not leave the country without court permission.
On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent had not paid the fine. Later on August 8, 2023, when the respondent’s lawyer stated he would deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within three months. The court agreed to postpone the case until November 21, 2023, making it clear that his bail would be revoked if he failed to pay. 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.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
- Whether the appellate court has the authority to suspend both the prison sentence and the fine imposed on the respondent while the appeal is still pending?
- Whether the appeal affect the enforcement of the sentence in default payment of the fine?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 389 of the CrPC:
This section deals with 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.
- Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 enables the Suspension of sentence pending appeal; and release of appellant on bail.
- Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
This section states that all the offences under BNS will be investigated and be dealt with in accordance with BNSS.
- Section 8 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
Section 8 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) states that Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
Shri K M Nataraj learned Additional Solicitor General of India, pointed out the Special Court found the respondent and his co-accused guilty of embezzling around Rs. 46 lakh. He noted that while the respondent’s seven-year prison sentence was suspended, he has only paid Rs. 15 lakh of the total fine of Rs. 95 lakh. As the direction to pay a fine has not been suspended under the contested order, the respondent will have to be taken into custody for undergoing sentence imposed in default of payment of a fine.
Nataraj, Learned ASG relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand a previous court case to argue that the court has the authority to suspend purposes under certain conditions. He pointed out that the order allowing the suspension of the prison sentence does not mention the fine being suspended, meaning the respondent could still face consequences for not paying it. I have 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. I have urged that there is a power to suspend the fine conferred by Section 389 of the CrPC with or without condition. I have submitted that the contested order does not record that the order of fine has been suspended. He, therefore, submitted that the challenged order would not help the respondent to avoid enforcement of the sentence in default of payment of the fine. I have argued that the High Court shouldn’t have granted an unconditional stay on the fine payment, especially since the respondent had only been in jail for about eight months before this.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
Shri Naidu, learner senior counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the entire sentence, including the sentence of fine, has been suspended by the impugned order. He submitted that the substantive sentence and the sentence in default of fine are limited period sentences. As the appeal against conviction is not likely to be heard in the near future, the High Court has rightly suspended the sentence.
JUDGEMENT:
In this case, the respondent was sentenced to seven years in prison and a fine of Rs. 95 lakhs for embezzlement. The court noted that the respondent had only paid Rs. 15 lakhs of the fine, which raised concerns about the enforcement of the sentence for non-payment.
Here the court, in this judgement, discusses Section 389 of CrPC.
Referring to a previous ruling that confirmed the appellate court’s power to suspend both the prison sentence and the fine. The Court emphasized that if a fine is imposed, it is considered a part of the sentence, and failure to pay can lead to additional imprisonment.
While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions. Whether the order of suspension of the sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional depends on the facts of each case and especially the nature of the offence. For example, when there is a sentence of fine imposed while convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, depending upon the facts of the case, the Appellate Court may impose a condition of depositing the fine amount or part thereof while suspending the sentence. However, the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under the IPC and cognate legislations, the Court said. The judgment noted that the high court had indeed suspended the respondent’s prison sentence, but there was no special mention of the suspension of the fine. However, since the respondent had deposited Rs. 15 lakhs, the court treated this deposit as a condition for suspending the fine. In the facts of the case, the total sentence, including substantive sentence and sentence in default of fine, will be imprisonment for eight years and nine months. Considering the huge pendency of criminal appeals triable by a Single Judge and considering the limited period sentence, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order passed way back on 29th September 2016.
The court decided not to interfere with the high court’s earlier order and ordered that 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. The High Court shall invest the said amount in an appropriate fixed deposit with any nationalized bank till the disposal of the criminal appeal. Order regarding disbursal/withdrawal of the amount and interest accrued thereon shall be passed at the time of final disposal of the appeal. This ensures that the respondent’s rights are upheld while also addressing the seriousness of the fine.
ANALYSIS:
The case revolves around the respondent, who was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to seven years in prison, along with a fine of Rs. 95 lakh. He appealed this conviction, and the High Court suspended his prison sentence; however, it didn’t explicitly mention the suspension of the fine. The respondent managed to pay only Rs. 15 lakh of the total fine, raising concerns about potential additional imprisonment for non-payment.
The High Court set certain conditions for the respondent’s bail, including the payment of part of the fine. This situation brings up important questions about how to enforce the sentence if the fine isn’t fully paid, as it could lead to the respondent being taken back into custody.
The court decided to allow the appeal, recognizing the respondent’s partial payment as a condition for suspending the fine, and ordered that the deposited amount be held until the appeal is resolved.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, this case highlights important legal issues about how sentences and fines are handled in appeals. In this case, the respondent was convicted to prison and was made to face a fine, the suspension of the prison sentence by the HC didn’t clearly address about fine leading to confusion. The law gives the appellate court the power to suspend both the sentence and fine, but as the respondent only paid part of the fine the question of what happened to the remaining amount arises. The case also emphasizes the need to respect the respondent’s rights during the process. The case shows how legal procedures must balance enforcement and the rights of those involved.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.
