Appeal Court ruling on fine payment during appeal process clarifies Section 357(2).

The Supreme Court held that Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not stay the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court during the appeal process. The Court upheld the High Court's decision directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount, dismissing the appeal. The Court clarified that Section 357(2) pertains to the payment of compensation, not the fine itself, and does not automatically stay the payment of the fine pending appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court.
2. Applicability of Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in staying the payment of fine during the pendency of an appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) of five years with a fine of Rs. 25,000 under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment but directed the appellant to deposit the fine amount. The appellant contested this part of the order, arguing that the fine should be automatically stayed under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the appeal.

2. Applicability of Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in staying the payment of fine during the pendency of an appeal:

The appellant argued that under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the fine imposed by the trial court should be stayed until the decision of the appeal. The appellant's counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd.* to support this claim. Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. pertains to the payment of compensation, not the fine, and thus, the High Court's direction to deposit the fine was valid.

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 357 Cr.P.C., which deals with the order to pay compensation. Section 357(1) allows the court to apply the fine towards compensation for various purposes. Section 357(2) states that if the fine is imposed in a case subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the appeal period has elapsed or, if an appeal is presented, before the decision of the appeal.

The Court clarified that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. prohibits the payment of compensation from the fine until the appeal is decided, but it does not stay the sentence of fine itself. The Court referenced *Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd.*, where the High Court's direction to deposit part of the fine as a condition for suspending the sentence was upheld.

The Court distinguished the present case from *Dilip S. Dahanukar*, noting that the latter dealt with compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., not the fine as part of the sentence. The Court also referred to judgments from the Karnataka High Court and other High Courts, which supported the view that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. does not stay the imposition of the fine but only the payment of compensation.

The Court concluded that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. was not applicable in the present case as there was no direction for payment of compensation from the fine. Therefore, the High Court's order directing the appellant to deposit the fine was valid.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. does not stay the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court during the pendency of an appeal. The High Court's direction to deposit the fine amount was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---