--
~
,L
BHAGWAN RAMA SHINDE GOSAI AND ORS.
v.
ST A TE OF GUJARAT
MAY 12, 1999
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 389
Sentence-Suspension during pendency of appeal-Principles for-
Expeditious disposal of appeal-Appellants convicted under Section 392
read with Section 397 /.P.C.-Appeal-Suspension of sentence not allowed
by High Court-Appellant's motion for having their appeal expedited also
declined by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held,-When the
appellate court finds that due to practical reasons appeals cannot be disposed
of expeditiously it must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending
the sentence-In this case the High Court was not inclined to hear the
appeal expeditiously-Consequently the sentence passed on appellants can
be suspended on some stringent conditions-Accordingly, the sentence is
suspended and it is directed that the appellants to be released on bail on
each of them executing a bond
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 554 of
1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.98 of the Gujarat High Court
in Crl. Misc.· A.No. 3619of1998 in Crl. A.No. 42of1998.
Aseem Mehrotra and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Appellants.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Mrs. Farah Sultana for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
This is a case where appellants have been convicted by the trial court
of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 and each of them was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for IO years. They filed an appeal before
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
the High Court of Gujarat and moved for suspension of sentence, but that H
545
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999] 3 S.C.R.
A was not allowed. At a later stage they again moved for suspension of sentence
and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. Unfortunately, when they
made a motion for having their appeal expedited that also was declined by
the High Court on the premise that the High Court is having older appeals
on the board.
B
When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and
when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can
b.e considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension
of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life
C imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a
cilfferent approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration
cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the
appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is
made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an
exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due
D to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the
appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the
sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course
appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.
In this case as the High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal
E expeditiously we are of the view that the sentence passed on appellants can
be suspended on some stringent conditions. We, therefore, suspend the
sentence and direct the appellants to be released on bail on each of them
executing a bond to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad.
We direct the appellants to report to Kapadwang Police Station on all Mondays
F and Thursdays between 4.00 P.M. and 6.00 P.M. until disposal of the appeal
pending before the High Court.
This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex