Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on October 24, 2024 said that while suspending the sentence, especially the fine, the appellate court can impose conditions but it should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it or this would amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, in violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that 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.

The court further explained 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.   

It said 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," the bench said.

In the matter at hand, the court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order of 2016 which suspended the sentence of accused Ashok Sirpal of seven years imprisonment and a Rs 95 lakh fine imposed upon him in a cheating case.

In default of the payment of the fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 21 months.

Before the apex court, the respondent accused deposited Rs 15 lakh.

In its plea, the CBI contended that the High Court had only suspended the substantive sentence, not the fine. Therefore, it urged that the respondent-accused should be required to serve the default sentence of 21 months in jail for failing to pay the fine.

In any case, the High Court could not have granted an unconditional stay of the order directing payment of Rs 95,00,000 fine, it argued.

On the other hand, the respondent-accused contended that the entire sentence, including the fine, had been suspended by the impugned order. He submitted that the substantive sentence and the sentence in default of fine were limited period sentences. As the appeal against conviction was not likely to be heard in the near future, the High Court had rightly suspended the sentence, he asserted.

Going through the High Court's order, the bench observed that the sentence imposed on the respondent included both imprisonment and a fine. Therefore, based on a straightforward reading of the order, the CBI's argument that the fine was not suspended could not be upheld, it held. 

"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 bench said.

Court directed that the deposit of Rs 15,00,000 would serve as a condition for suspending the fine. It further ordered that this amount to be placed in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, and its disbursal and withdrawal will depend on the final outcome of the appeal.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Ashok Sirpal