Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2020 Latest Caselaw 1146 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Judgment Reserved On: 18.12.2019
                              Judgment Pronounced On: 19.02.2020
+       CRL.A. 390/2019.
        SMT. VIJAY LAKSHMI BANSAL                  ..... Appellant

                           Through:    Mr. Jawahar Raja & Mr.
                                       Ashish Sharma, Advocates
                                       with appellant in person
                           Versus
        CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                   .....Respondent
                           Through     Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma,
                                       Special Public Prosecutor for
                                       CBI with Mr. Prakarsh Airan,
                                       Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary & Mr.
                                       Parikshit Sharma, Advocates
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
                  JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J

CRL. M.B 583/2019 & CRL M.B. 1901/2019 (Suspension of Sentence) in CRL.A. 390/2019

1. These are two Crl. M.B. filed under Section 389/482 Cr.P.C.

by the applicant Smt Vijay Lakshmi Bansal seeking suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

2. Vide order dated 02.02.2019, the applicant was sentenced to

three years' RI with fine of Rs. 65,00,000/- for the offence under

section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' simple

imprisonment. Applicant was also sentenced to seven years RI

with fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offence under Section 467 IPC and

in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She

was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/-

for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of

fine, three months SI. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI

with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC

and in default of payment of fine, one year' simple imprisonment.

She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.

50,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of

payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further

sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs. 6,25,000/-for the

offence under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine,

six months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to

seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under

Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years'

simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years' RI

with fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC and

in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment.

She was further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.

50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of

payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment. She was further

sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the

offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine,

one years' simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to

three years' RI with fine of Rs. 12,70,000/- for the offence under

Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months

simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years' RI

with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 467 IPC

and in default of payment of fine, one years' simple imprisonment.

She was further sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.

50,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of

payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. She was

further sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for

the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of

fine, one years' simple imprisonment and she was further sentenced

to seven years' is RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence

under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one

years' simple imprisonment. The appellant has been given the

benefit of section 428 Cr PC.

3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant

is 48 years old and has two children aged about 17 years and 20

years. It is further submitted that presence of applicant is necessary

to look after her children as husband of applicant is also in JC since

February 2019. It is further submitted that applicant's daughter is

suffering from migraine, anxiety and depression and is under

treatment for the same. It is further submitted that applicant is also

not able to pay the educational fee of her daughter and son since she

is in jail. It is further submitted that applicant has a clean record.

She has a good prima facie case and there is every likelihood of the

applicant succeeding in her appeal. Applicant has strong roots in

society and has lived at her present address for the last about 15-20

years. It is further submitted that Applicant's young/growing

children will also suffer serious prejudice if they are deprived of the

applicant's care, custody and supervision in their grown years.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in number

of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when

an appellant has preferred an appeal against his conviction,

suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court

liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances. When the

appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals

cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate court should

bestow special concern in the matter, suspending the sentence, so as

to make the right of appeal, meaningful and effective. It is lastly

submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the

applicant's sentence is suspended.

4. On the other hand, Ld. SPP has opposed the present

application. He has submitted that the impugned judgment is very

detailed one and the entire evidence has been considered threadbare.

It is further submitted that offence committed by the applicant is

serious in nature. The appellant has not even deposited the fine. He

has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of application for suspension of

sentence.

5. Having perused the impugned judgment and hearing learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for CBI, this

court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant at this

stage. The appellant stands convicted of the serious offence u/s

120B/420/467/468/471 read with Section 120B IPC. At this stage, it

is neither prudent nor advisable to deal with the merits of the case in

detail as this will not be in the interest of justice, since the parties

have not made their detailed submissions on the basis of the

evidence recorded before the trial court. To decide the present

application, this court is required to make a prima facie assessment

of the case of the appellant. Prima facie, at this stage, it does not

appear that there is any patent illegality or perversity in the

appreciation of evidence or in the findings of the court.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that daughter of

the petitioner is not keeping well and is under treatment for

migraine, anxiety and depression. It is further submitted that

applicant is also not able to pay the educational fee of her daughter

and son. Ld. SPP has, however, submitted that out of the total

sentence awarded to the applicant by the Ld. Trial court, the

appellant has served sentence of about three months only at the

time of filing of the present appeal. This court finds that appellant

has been held guilty along with other co-accused persons, prima

facie, for criminal conspiracy for committing offences of cheating

and causing huge financial loss to the tune of around Rs. 82,19,137/-

along with interest to a Nationalised bank and wrongful gain to

himself and other convicts. This court is of the view that keeping in

mind the seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant for

which he has been convicted, no grounds for suspension of sentence

are made out at this stage.

7. In view of above discussions, I do not find any ground at this

stage to allow the applications and suspend the sentence during the

pendency of the present appeal. The applications for suspension of

sentence are, therefore, dismissed.

CRL.A. 390/2019.

Let the respondent file its reply within 6 weeks and rejoinder,

if any, be filed within 4 weeks.

List the appeal in due course.

BRIJESH SETHI, J FEBRUARY 19, 2020 AK