VASANT TUKARAM PAWAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 15-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VASANT TUKARAM PAWAR 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 15, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 389-Suspension of Sentence 
and grant of bail-Conviction and sentence by Trial Court under Prevention 
C of Corruption Act-Accused also convicted under the Act in another case on 
previous occasion-Prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail rejected 
by High Court on the ground that fine imposed was not deposited-Relevance 
of forfeiture of attached property and effect and relevance of other case not 
considered-Fine deposited subsequent to decision-On appeal, held: 
Suspension of sentence and grant of hail should not be granted as a matter 
D of routine-In the facts of the present case High Court directed to reconsider 
the application considering the effect and relevance of the other case and 
relevance of the forfeiture of the property-Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988-Sections JJ(J)(e) and 13(2). 
E 
Bail and Suspension of sentence-Difference between. 
Appellant-accused was tried under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) 
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for being in possession of property 
disproportionate to his known source of income. Trial Court convicted him 
for the offences and sentenced him accordingly. In appeal to High Court, 
F appellant prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. High Court 
rejected the prayer on the ground that the fine imposed had not been deposited 
by the appellant 
Respondent-State contended that in a previous case (Special Case No.99 
G of 1996) appellant had faced trial with two others wherein he was convicted 
and sentenced for the offences punishable u/ss. 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w Section 
13(2) of the Act and Section 120 and 409 IPC, hence in this background no 
interference was called for. 
H 
Appellant contended that the fine had been deposited subsequent to the 
630 
~-
. ..
~-
I 
·-
) 
VASA NT TUKARAM PAW AR'' STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [PASAYA T, J.] 
63} 
decision of the High Court and that his conviction in the other case was not A 
one of the factors for rejecting the prayer. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is a distinction between bail and suspension ofsentence. 
One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 Cr.P.C., is the requirement of B 
the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for order of suspension of 
execution of the sentence or an order of release if the accused is in confinement 
The said Court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. 
Requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has 
to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing C 
suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of 
routine. (633-E-G) 
2. One of the reasons which weighed with the High Court was that fine 
imposed had not been deposited. Same has been subsequently deposited. 
Further, the relevance of the forfeiture of the attached property has not been D 
considered. Therefore, the High Court is directed to re-consider the 
application. While doing so, the effect and relevance of the order of conviction 
and sentence passed in S.C. 99of1996 shall be considered. (633-H; 634-A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 558 E 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.2004 of the Bombay High 
Court at Aurangabad in Crl. A. No. 720 of2004 in Crl. A. No. 188 of2004. 
Dr. Rajeev, B. Masodkar and Anil K. Jha for the Appellant. 
U.U. Lalit, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri and R.K. Adsure with him for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Refusal by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench to accept the 
prayer of the appellant, for suspension of sentence and to be released on bail 
while admitting the appeal filed by him, is questioned in this Appeal. 
F 
G 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Factual backgound facts in a nutshell are as follows : 
The appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable 
under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The allegation against the appellant was that 
he was in possession of property worth Rs. 4, 12,297 which was 
B disproportionate to his known sources of income. Appellant faced trial in the 
Court of Special Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 77 of 1996. After 
considering the available

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