LexSHIV KUMAR versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 568 e ~ A SHIV KUMAR v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ... "( (Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 2008) DECEMBER 15, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ~- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 389-Suspension c of sentence during pendency of appeal and release of accused on bail - Conviction ulss. 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence of three years - Application for ,.,. suspension of sentence on the plea that minimum sentence for the offence was only six months and he had already served D sentence of one year and eight months - Rejected by High Court - On appeal, Held: Generally for conviction under the Act, protection uls.389 not desirable-However, in the peculiar facts of the case, direction to High Court for early disposal of the appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13 (2). E Appellant was convicted u/ss. 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Appellant filed an application seeking suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 Cr.P.C, on the ground that he had suffered more than 1 year and 8 F months sentence. He contended that the minimum sentence for the offence was only six months; and that he 7- being the peon in the depart!llent concerned had no .... authority to issue any domicile certificate. High Court J rejected the application. Hence the present appeal. G Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Where the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it would not be prudent and desirable to give protection u/ -.-- s. 389 Cr.P.C. However taking into account th~ peculiar .... H 568 SHIV KUMAR v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 569 circumstances of the case, the High Court is requested to A , --, dispose of the appeal as early as practicable. In case the ' appeal is not disposed of by the end of March, 2009, it shall be open to the appellant to move to the High Court afresh for bail. [Paras 9 and 10] [571-E-F; 572-G] Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat ( 1999) B 4 SCC 421 and Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra (2002) 9 SCC 364, referred to. _.._ Case Law Reference: (1999) 4 sec 421 referred to Para 6 c2002) 9 sec 364 referred to Para 7 c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.B. 221/2008 in Crl. Appeal No. 253/2007. D Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant. + B.B. Singh, Sadhana Sandhu and Anil Jatiyar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejecting the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short F the 'Code'). The stand of the appellant is that he had suffered -~ more than 1 year and eight months' custody and therefore the \ sentence should be suspended. The High Court noted that earlier also asimilar prayer was made which was rejected by order dated 18.9.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was G: only a peon who had no authority to issue any domicile certificate. Therefore the conviction should not have been .. _ t recorded. In any event the sentences imposed for offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') are harsh. In such a case H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A minimum sentence is six months but in the instant case three years imprisonment has been awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand r- '( supported the judgment. 5. Several decisions were cited at the bar. B 6. In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat [1999(4) sec 421] it was inter alia held as follows: "3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory _A.. c right, suspension of sentence can be 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 imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a D different appro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.