Delhi High Court
Gopal Prasad vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 18.12.2019
Judgment Pronounced On: 19.02.2020
+ CRL M.B. 624/2019 in CRL.A. 431/2019
GOPAL PRASAD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.Pillai, Advocate
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 Sarma, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J
CRL M.B. 624/2019(Suspension of Sentence)
1. This is a Crl. M.B. filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. by the
applicant Gopal Prasad 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, six 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.
He 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. He 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. He 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. He was
further sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for
the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 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 69 years old. Wife of applicant is 65 years old and his son is
living at Agra, U.P. It is further submitted that younger son of
applicant died in a road accident in 2006 and since then his elder son
is suffering from extreme depression and has stopped working and
therefore, besides his own wife, the applicant is financially and
emotionally supporting his 44 years old son as well. Applicant is a
pensioner and has no other source of income so as to pay the fine
imposed by the Ld. Trial Court. Applicant has roots in the society
and is a permanent resident of Arga, U.P. and as such, there is no
chance of his fleeing or evading the legal process. 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
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988(PC Act) and under Section 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 petitioner is
an old man of 69 years and his wife and 44 years old son are totally
dependent upon him. 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 four 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 thus,
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 application and suspend the sentence during the
pendency of the present appeal. The application for suspension of
sentence is, therefore, dismissed.
CRL.A. 431/2019
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
