Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court’s Suspension of Sentence and Fine in Embezzlement Case, Affirms ₹15 Lakh Deposit Condition to Preserve Right to Appeal

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s order suspending both the respondent’s sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed upon conviction. It upheld the conditional suspension, allowing the suspension of the sentence of fine, provided a sum of ₹15,00,000 remains deposited with the court.

Facts

The respondent was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for conspiracy to embezzle ₹46,00,000 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, alongside a fine of ₹95,00,000. In default of paying the fine, the respondent was to serve an additional 21 months of simple imprisonment. The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal and suspended the sentence of imprisonment and fine upon the respondent providing a personal bond of ₹50,000, with the condition that he would not leave the country without the trial court’s permission.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in suspending the sentence of fine along with the sentence of imprisonment.
2. Whether the respondent should serve the default sentence due to partial non-payment of the fine.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Additional Solicitor General argued that the suspension of the sentence did not include the fine imposed by the trial court. He submitted that due to non-payment of the total fine amount, the respondent should be taken into custody to serve the default sentence. The ASG relied on the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand to argue that suspending both the imprisonment and fine without condition was improper.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent’s counsel contended that the High Court suspended the entire sentence, including the fine, as it was unlikely that the appeal would be heard soon. He argued that the suspension was in line with the limited sentence and the High Court’s discretion under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Analysis of the Law

The power under Section 389 of the CrPC allows the appellate court to suspend the execution of sentences pending appeal. This includes both sentences of imprisonment and fines. Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifies that failure to pay a fine can lead to a term of imprisonment. Thus, suspension of a fine can be conditional or unconditional, subject to the court’s discretion.

Precedent Analysis

The court referenced Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand, where it affirmed the appellate court’s authority under Section 389 to suspend sentences conditionally. The Supreme Court noted that while conditions may be imposed on the suspension of fines, they should not be overly restrictive to avoid infringing on the appellant’s right to appeal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the suspension of the sentence of fine was justified and conditional upon the deposit of ₹15,00,000 by the respondent. The court emphasized that strict conditions on suspension of fines might hinder access to justice, as excessive conditions could effectively prevent an appellant from appealing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s suspension of the sentence, including the fine, on the condition that the deposited amount would remain invested until the final resolution of the appeal. The deposit was deemed adequate to satisfy the conditions for suspending the fine.

Implications

This judgment reiterates the appellate court’s discretion under Section 389 of the CrPC to suspend both imprisonment and fine, either conditionally or unconditionally, and affirms the approach of allowing access to appellate remedies without imposing excessive financial burdens that could restrict the right to appeal.

Also Read – Supreme Court Overturns Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Excessive Bail Conditions, Declares Directive to Demolish Wall and Surrender Property Keys an Overreach Infringing Civil Rights and Prejudicing Pending Litigation