N. RAMAMURTHY versus STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A.C.B., BENGALURU

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 26-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
N. RAMAMURTHY
v.
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
A.C.B., BENGALURU
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 751-752 of 2019)
APRIL 26, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 389 – Suspension of
sentence pending the appeal – On facts, appellant convicted and
sentenced for the offences u/s. 120-B rw ss. 409, 420, 468, 471,
477-A IPC and s.13(2) r/w ss. 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act – Applications seeking suspension of execution of
sentence – Rejected by the High Court on the ground that the
sentence of imprisonment all put together comes to 45 years of
rigorous imprisonment, for all proven guilt put together – On appeal,
held: High Court proceeded as if the accused appellant has been
ordered to undergo imprisonment for a whopping 45 years – Such
an assumption by the High Court was fundamentally incorrect –
High Court omitted to notice that the trial court had specifically
ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently – Furthermore,
the High Court referred to the principles governing the consideration
of the prayer for suspension of the operation of the order of
conviction, though the prayer in the instant matter had only been
for suspension of execution of sentence – Since the consideration
of the prayer is found vitiated for an erroneous approach, the orders
by the High Court are set aside; and the applications are restored.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is imperative to restore the applications for
consideration afresh for the fundamental reason that the approach
of the High Court in dealing with the applications made on behalf
of the appellant under Section 389 CrPC had apparently been
from a wrong angle and on two major misconceptions: One, that
the High Court assumed as if the sentences awarded to the
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1120
1120
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
appellant for different offences are to run consecutively i.e., one
after another and, while taking sum total of the sentences so
awarded, the High Court has proceeded as if the accused
appellant has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for a
whopping 45 years. Such an assumption by the High Court had
been fundamentally incorrect and the High Court, obviously,
omitted to notice that the trial court had specifically ordered that
all the sentences shall run concurrently. Secondly, the High Court
has proceeded to refer to the principles governing the
consideration of the prayer for suspension of the operation of the
order of conviction, although the prayer in the present matter
had only been for suspension of execution of sentence.
[Para 6][1129-A-D]
1.2 When the High Court assumed that the appellant is to
serve 45 years in prison, its consideration of the prayer for
suspension of execution of sentence took entirely different
dimensions. The applications ought to have been considered while
keeping in view the fact that with concurrent running of sentences,
the maximum period for imprisonment envisaged by the order of
the trial court is 7 years. Of course, there are default stipulations
in the order of the trial court but in any case, and by any method
of calculation, it cannot be said that the appellant has been ordered
to serve out 45 years in prison. The length of imprisonment to
be served under an impugned order of sentencing has obvious
bearing on the consideration of the prayer for suspension of
execution of sentence during the pendency of an appeal or
revision; and when there had been fundamental error as regards
such an over-bearing factor, the prayer of the appellant requires
reconsideration after removal of this error. [Para 7][1129-D-G]
1.3 It is found from the impugned order that even after
taking note of the principles aforesaid, the High Court has
apparently missed out the substratum and has not applied the
applicable legal principles to the case at hand. The other grounds
urged on behalf of the appellant for suspension of execution of
substantive sentence of imprisonment are not elaborated,
essentially for the reason that this prayer under Section 389 CrPC
N. RAMAMURTHY v.  STATE BY C.B.I.  A.C.B., BENGALURU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
is to be adequately examined and considered by the High Court
with reference to the record and all the surrounding factors; and,
in the present case, when consideration of such a prayer is found
vitiated for an erroneous approach, the High Court nee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.