Delhi High Court
Daya Nand vs State on 17 September, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This application has been made for suspension of sentence by the appellant, who has been convicted under Section 467/471/120-B-IPC and sentenced to undergo 07 years RI and fine of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant had undergone only one year and three months approximately. It is submitted that the hearing of appeal would take long time therefore, sentence of the appellant should be suspended.
2. While suspending the sentence, the Court has to see the heinousness of the crime, the period of sentence already undergone and the question of fact and law raised by the applicant. Supreme Court in recent judgment in case Gomti v. Thakurdas and Ors. 2007 Crl.L.J.2431 observed as under:
9. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
10. The appellate Court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail.
11. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the accused persons were on bail during trial there was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view.
12 In Vijay Kumar v. Narender and Ors. 2002 (9) SCC 364 and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. 2002 (9) SCC 366, it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. The impugned order of the High Court does not meet the requirement. In Vijay Kumar's case (supra) it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder.
The above position was highlighted in Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Ors. 2004 (7) SCC 638 and in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2005(5) SCC 281.
3. In the present case, the accused along with others was involved in forging of stamps of Issuing Authority of Kisan Vikas Patras and sold forged Kisan Vikas Patras as genuine knowing those to be forged. The total recovery of the forged Kisan Vikas Patras from the accused persons was of Rs.46,80,000/- Forged stamps of various post offices were also recovered. After considering the entire evidence that have come on record, the trial Court convicted the accused persons in above provisions. Considering the huge amount involved in the forged Kisan Vikas Patras, the forged postal stamps recovered from him and the role played by the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant has been in jail only for 01 year 03 months, out of the total sentence of 07 years, I consider it would not be appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellant at this stage.
The application is hereby dismissed.
