Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Ashok Sirpal
2024 Latest Caselaw 668 SC

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Ashok Sirpal 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4277 OF 2024

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECT

1. The factual controversy which arises in this appeal is   very   limited.   The   respondent   ­ accused   no.2,   by judgment and order dated 27th January 2016 passed by the Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), Karkardooma Courts, East   District,   Delhi,   was   convicted   for   the   offences 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 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each offence. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.95,00,000/­. In default of the payment of the fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 21 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The respondent preferred an appeal against   conviction   before   the   Delhi   High   Court.   The appeal was admitted. By the impugned order dated 29th September   2016,   the   sentence   was   suspended   by  the learned   Single   Judge   of   Delhi   High   Court   on the respondent furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­ with one surety of the like amount subject to the   satisfaction   of   the   learned   Trial   Judge.   A   further condition was imposed on the respondent of not leaving the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.

2. On   19th  March   2018,   while   issuing   notice,   this Court passed the following order: “ Delay condoned. The   learned   Additional   Solicitor General   appearing   for   the   petitioner   – CBI submits that the respondent has not deposited   the   fine.   The   submission   is recorded.

Issue notice.” 

On 8th August 2023, the following order was passed: “ The   learned   Senior   Counsel appearing   for   the   respondent,   on instructions, states that the respondent will deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.15 lakhs within three months from today.  Only in view of this statement, we adjourn this petition till 21.11.2023 to be listed on the top of the Board.  We   make   it   clear   that   on   the failure of the respondent to deposit the said amount, the order granting bail to the respondent is liable to be set aside.  As and when the said amount is deposited, the Registry will invest it in the interest bearing deposit with auto renewal facility.” 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. 

SUBMISSIONS

3. Shri   K   M   Nataraj,   learned   Additional   Solicitor General of India, pointed out that the finding against the respondent and co­accused by the Special Court is that there was an embezzlement of approximately a sum of Rs.46,00,000/­. He pointed out that what is suspended under the impugned order is the substantive sentence of 7   years.   As   the   respondent has   paid   only   a   sum   of Rs.15,00,000/­   out   of   the   total   fine   amount   of Rs.95,00,000/­ and as the direction to pay a fine has not been   suspended   under   the   impugned   order,   the respondent   will   have   to   be   taken   into   custody   for undergoing sentence imposed in default of payment of a fine. Learned ASG relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Satyendra   Kumar   Mehra   v.   State   of Jharkhand1 . He 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. He urged that there is a power to suspend the fine conferred by Section 389 of the CrPC with or without condition. He submitted that the impugned order does not record that the   order   of   fine   has   been suspended.   He,   therefore, submitted that the impugned order would not help the respondent   to   avoid   enforcement   of   the sentence   in default of payment of the fine. He submitted that, in any case,   the   High   Court   could   not   have   granted   an
unconditional   stay   of   the   order   directing   payment   of a fine   of   Rs.95,00,000/­.   He   submitted   that   until   the impugned order was passed, the respondent had only been incarcerated for about 8 months. 

4. 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.  

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5. Section 389 of the CrPC reads thus:

“389.   Suspension   of   sentence   pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.— (1)   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: Provided   that   the   Appellate   Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own   bond   a   convicted   person   who   is 
convicted of an offence punishable with death   or   imprisonment   for   life   or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release: Provided further that in cases where a convicted   person   is   released   on   bail   it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he   intends   to   present   an   appeal,   the Court shall, — (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order   that   the   convicted   person   be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate   Court   under   sub­section   (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.

(4)   When   the   appellant   is   ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced.” The power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of   the   CrPC   (Corresponding   to   Section   430   of   the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is vested in the   Appellate   Court   dealing   with   an   appeal   against the order of conviction. On a plain reading of sub­section (1), the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the execution of a sentence or order appealed against. If the appellant/accused is in confinement, there is a power vesting   in   the  Appellate  Court   to   release  him  on   bail pending   the   final   disposal   of   the   appeal.   In   case   of offences covered by the first proviso to sub­section (1) of Section 389, there is a mandate to give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause in writing against such release before releasing a convicted person on bail. As stated earlier, the substantive sentence imposed on the respondent is rigorous imprisonment  for seven years. In   addition,   there   is   a   direction   to   pay   a fine   of Rs.95,00,000/­.   There   are   five   kinds   of   punishment provided in Section 53 in Chapter III of the IPC, which reads thus: 

“53.   “Punishments”.—The   punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are— First—Death; Secondly—Imprisonment for life; Thirdly— [* * *]; Fourthly—Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely: — (1)   Rigorous,   that   is,   with   hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly—Forfeiture of property; Sixthly—Fine.” 

Section 64, which is a part of the same chapter III, reads thus:

“64.   Sentence   of   imprisonment   for non­payment  of   fine­ In every case, of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced   to   a   fine,   whether   with   or without imprisonment, and   in   every   case of   an   offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine,  It   shall   be   competent   to   the   Court which sentences such offender to direct by   the   sentence   that,   in   default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be   liable   under   a   commutation   of   a sentence.”

(emphasis added)

Sections   4   and   8(2)   of   the   Bharatiya   Nyaya   Sanhita, 2023, are the corresponding Sections. Section 64 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. Under Section 64, the Court is empowered to direct that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a specific term   as   directed   therein.   Therefore,   there   can   be   a sentence   of   fine   and   a   further   sentence   in   default   of compliance with the sentence of fine. 

6. In paragraph no.36 of the decision of this Court in the case of  Satyendra Kumar  Mehra1 , this Court held thus:

“36. We, however, make it clear that the appellate   court   while   exercising   power under Section 389 CrPC can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine   without   any   condition   or   with conditions. There are no fetters on the power   of   the appellate   court   while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 CrPC.   The   appellate court   could   have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine.” Thus, while convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against   him   to   pay   a   fine,   such   a   direction   can   be suspended in the exercise of power under sub­section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC. 7. Coming back to the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned therein that the respondent's sentence stands suspended pending the hearing of the appeal subject to compliance of furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court was conscious of the fact that as the embezzlement alleged against the respondent and other accused persons was to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/­, the Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of   Rs.95,00,000/­.   The   order   notes   that   the   sentence imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment and payment of fine. Therefore, on a plain reading of the impugned order, the argument of learned ASG that the sentence   of   the   fine   was   not   suspended   cannot   be   accepted. 

 8. 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.   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. 

9. 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.

10. Hence,   there   is   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the impugned   order,   especially   when   the   respondent   has deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­ in this Court.   The deposit of Rs.15,00,000/­ shall be treated as a condition for   suspending   the   sentence   of   fine.   Accordingly,   the appeal is disposed of with the above modification. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/­deposited by the respondent has been invested by the Registry in fixed deposit. Immediately after maturity of the exising 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 nationalised 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.  

……………………..J. (Abhay S. Oka)

……………………..J. (Augustine George Masih)

New Delhi;
October 24, 2024