SUSHIL ANSAL versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 22-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 552 
SUSHIL ANSAL 
v. 
STATE THROUGH CBI 
(CriminalAppeal No.597 of2010) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 
[ANIL R.DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
C 
Sentence/Sentencing - Conviction of the appel/ants-
accused u/ss.304-A/3371338 rlw. s.36 /PC and uls.14 of 
Cinematograph Act, 1952 -Accused sentenced to one year 
imprisonment- Division Bench of Supreme Court confirmed 
their conviction - But there was difference of opinion on the 
D question of sentence - Matter referred to larger Bench to 
determi~e the question of sentence - Held: Maximum 
sentence for such offence is imprisonment of two years - In 
the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence needs 
E to be enhanced to its maximum - But the ends of justice 
would be met if in lieu of the enhanced period of sentence of 
one year; substantial amount of fine is imposed, which can 
be used for setting up/upgrading a Trauma Centre in Delhi -
Hence, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay a fine of 
F Rs. 30 crores each, within a period of 3 months from the date 
of judgment - If the fine is paid, their sentence would be 
reduced to the period already undergone - On default to pay 
fine, have to undergo 2 years RI - In the peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the case, sentence of accused No. 15 is 
G reduced to the period already undergone on payment of fine 
of Rs. 10 /akhs- On default, to undergo sentence of one year 
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304-A, 337, 338 rlw. s.36 -
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - s. 14. 
H 
552 
SUSHIL ANSAL v. STATE THROUGH CBI 
553 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court. 
A 
HELD: 1. An appropriate sentence has to be awarded 
by taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the 
manner of commission, the age of the accused and other 
mitigating and a.ggravating circumstances. The sentence B 
should neither be excessively harsh nor ridiculously low. 
[Para 16] [562-D] 
2. Matter of such magnitude as in the present case, 
may call for a higher sentence, but the Court has to limit C 
itself to the choice availaule under the law prescribing 
sentence. The maximum $entence prescribed under the 
law is p~riod of two years and the High Court had chosen, 
in the facts and circumstances of the case, to award 
sentence of one year. [Para 17] [562-E-F] 
o 
3. The. sentence awarded by the High Court needs 
to be enhanced to the maximum period of two years 
under Section 304-A but in lieu of additional period of 
sentence of one year, the substantial amount of fine E 
needs to be imposed. In case the said amount of fine is 
paid, the sentence should be reduced to the period 
already undergone in the case of A 1. On the principle of 
parity, the case of A2 will stand on the same footing as 
that of A1. Thus, ends of justice would meet, if the F 
appellants are directed to pay fine so that the amount of 
fine can be used either for the purpose of setting up a 
Trauma Centre in NCT of Delhi or for upgrading Trauma 
Centres of Hospitals managed in NCT of Delhi by the 
Government of Delhi. [Para 18] [563-A-D] 
G 
4. Therefore, it is directed that a fine of Rs.30 crore 
on each appellant should be imposed and if the said fine 
is paid within a period of three months, the sentence of 
the appellants be reduced to the sentence already H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
undergone. If the aforestated amount is not paid within 
three months from the date of order dated 191h August, 
2015, the appellants shall undergo two years' rigorous 
imprisonment, including the sentence already 
B 
undergone. [Para 19] [563-E-F] 
5. As regards the conviction of Appellant whose 
conviction u/s. 304-A/337/338 r/w s. 36 IPC was 
confirmed, on the ground of parity, shall stand 
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one 
C year. However, having regard to advanced age and 
diseases like alzheimer's disease suffered by the 
accused and other peculiar facts and circumstances, if 
he pays Rs.10 lakh by way of fine, the sentence ~ill stand 
reduced to the period already undergone. If he fails to 
D pay the aforestated amount within three months from 
the order dated 19'h August, 2015, he shall undergo the 
sentence of one year, including the term which he has 
already undergone. [Paras 20 and 21] [563-H; 564-A-C] 
E 
6. The fine imposed upon A-1, A-2 and A-15 shall be 
given by way of a demand draft to the Chief Secretary of 
Delhi Government for setting up a new trauma centre or 
for upgrading the existing trauma centres of hospitals

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