LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ASHOK SIRPAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 930 : 2024 INSC 819 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal (Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024) 24 October 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 95,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, was to undergo simple imprisonment for 21 months – However, the High Court suspended the sentence, on the respondent furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety – Correctness: Held: 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 sub-section (1) of s.389 – 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 Art.21 – In the impugned order, it was clearly mentioned * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 931 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal 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/- – 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 lakhs, the Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 95 lakhs – Sentence imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment and payment of fine – Thus, it cannot be said that the sentence of the fine was not suspended – 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, not possible to find fault with the impugned order – Thus, interference with the impugned order not called for, especially when the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in this Court, which is to be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine. [Paras 6-10] Case Law Cited Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand [2018] 4 SCR 1033 : (2018) 15 SCC 139 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. List of Keywords Suspending sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed; Embezzlement; Rigorous imprisonment for seven years; Sentenced to pay fine of Rs.95,00,000/-; Furnishing personal bond; Suspension of sentence; Deposit of amount; Substantive sentence; Fixed deposit. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMB No. 948 of 2016 932 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Veer Vikrant Singh, Sharath Nambiar, Nalin Kohli, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Parantap Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Rahul Gupta, Deepak Sharma, Ms. Sivani Reddy, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 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 passe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.