TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....467, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court by order dated 24.01.2018 convicted the accused and awarded sentence. The appellant, who was one of the accused, was awarded the following sentence by the trial court: "44. Satyendra Kumar Mehra convicted for offence punishable U/s 120B/ 420, 120B/ 467, 120B/ 468 and 120B/ 471 IPC: U/s 120B/ 420 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 468 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. U/s 120B/ 471 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off." 3. Aggrieved against the above conviction and sentence order the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2018 before the High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilders Pvt. Ltd. and another, (2001) 2 SCC 416, has also upheld a similar order passed by the High Court where the High Court directed payment of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence which was part of the fine imposed as part of sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of this Court in Stanny Felix Pinto(supra) cannot be pressed into service with regard to interpretation of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. which section is neither referred to nor adverted to by this Court in above case. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the facts brought on record, it is clear that the sentence awarded to the appellant was a sentence of R.I. of five years with payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/and in default S.I. of three months. The said sentence was recorded in four cases and all sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, the fine was part of the sentence. The question which is to be answered in the present case is as to whether by virtue of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reto." (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section." 13. All the circumstances in subsection (1) of Section 357 refer to direction to pay compensation out of the fine imposed. Thus, all the circumstances are circumstances where fine imposed and recovered is to be applied in the above circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no way affected by Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The present is not a case where trial court has directed payment of any compensation to anyone out of fine imposed. There is no direction for payment of compensation in the order of the trial court nor present case is covered by the circumstances mentioned in subclauses (a) to (d) of Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Present is also not a case of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no question of applicability of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. The heading of Section 357 Cr. P.C. throws considerable light in finding the object and purpose of the Section. Section 357 Cr.P.C. is only attracted when Court orders for payment of compensation. Section 357 is not attracted in any other case. It is well settled that heading of the Section plays a role when there is any doubt in interpretation of the Section. This Court in Bhinka and others vs. Charan Singh, AIR 1959 SC 960, while examining the role of a heading of section while interpreting a section noticed the following principle; "15......Section 180 provides for the eviction of a person who but for the eviction would become a hereditary tenant by efflux of the prescribed time. If there is any ambig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twentyfive thousand only). In default of payment of fine, Accused 2 Mr Dilip Dahanukar, the Chairman of Accused 1 and representative at the trial, shall suffer SI for 1 month. Accused 2 Mr Dilip S. Dahanukar, stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accused 2 is sentenced to suffer SI for 1 month. Accused 2 is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant, quantified (sic) at Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only), under Section 357(3) CrPC. Accused 2 is entitled to pay the amount of compensation in two equal monthly instalments of Rs. 7,50,000 each. The first instalment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 2332006 and the second instalment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 2442006; in default of payment of the amount of compensation Accused 2 shall suffer further SI for 2 months." 18. An appeal was preferred against the conviction order. The Appellate Court while admitting the appeal directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakh each within four weeks from the said date. Writ petition was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereof. Suspension of a sentence and enlarging an appellant on bail, who is convicted and realisation of fine has been dealt with by Parliament under different provisions of the Code. The power of the court, thus, to suspend a sentence in regard to realisation of compensation may be different from that of a direction in realisation of fine." 21. This Court in the aforesaid case has noted the distinction between fine of Rs. 25,000/which was imposed on the Company and compensation of Rs. 15 lakh which was directed to be paid by the Chairman of the Company. In paragraph 71 the aforesaid was mentioned to the following effect: "71. We are prima facie of the opinion (without going into the merit of the appeal) that the direction of the learned trial Judge appears to be somewhat unreasonable. The appellant herein has been sentenced to imprisonment. Only fine has been imposed on the Company. Thus, for all intent and purpose, the learned trial Judge has invoked both subsections (1) and (3) of Section 357 of the Code. The liability of the appellant herein was a vicarious one in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question may also have to be considered f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lakhs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lakhs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers to payment to be made to the person, who is ordered to be paid compensation and not the fine amount, inclusive of compensation amount to be 'deposited' by accused. The stay engrafted into the said provision of law is with reference to the 'payment' of such amount earlier to the expiry of the appeal period or, where appeal has been preferred, during the pendency of such appeal. So, Section 357 need not and cannot be read with Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. In fact, neither the petitioners/appellants applied for, nor the Appellate Court ordered suspension of the sentence relating to compensation of Rs. 16 lakhs only. On the other hand, when the suspension of impugned sentence passed against them is seen with the power given to the Appellate Court under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C., besides the ambit or scope of Section 357 of the Cr. P.C., there will not be any difficulty in holding that there is no error of record or infirmity or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court of Sessions suspending the sentence on condition of depositing 20% of the total fine amount imposed on them (petitioners). 10. In this view of the matter, neither ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Sabita Behl's case(supra). Thus, in my opinion, the Appellate Court was not justified while imposing the impugned condition directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/before the trial Court at the time of furnishing the bail bonds in view of the order of suspension of sentence passed by the Appellate Court." 28. The above case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the above case, there was direction within the meaning of Section 357 subsection (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation. Hence Section 357 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. was relied by the Court. Present is not a case of payment of any compensation out of fine imposed on appellant. Thus, the above case in no manner helps the appellant. 29. Now we come to the second case relied by the appellant i.e. Division Bench Judgment of Patna High court in Bharat Mandal son of Sitaram Mandal & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, 2012 (2) PLJR 855. In the above case accused were convicted under Section 307/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced for life imprisonment and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/each. The appeal was filed in which the Appellate Court declin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the view that the High Court's observation that in view of Section 357 subsection (2) of Cr.P.C. the realisation of fine would automatically get stayed does not take into consideration the distinction in a case where fine is part of sentence and there is direction to pay compensation and in a case where there is no direction to pay any compensation. 31. The third case relied by the learned Counsel for the appellant is again a Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.529 of 2012, Naresh Yadav@ Naresh Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, decided on 26.06.2012. The Judgment of Patna High Court has been placed on record along with the short submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the judgment indicate that Patna High Court has not noticed the facts of the case and the nature of Order passed by the trial Court regarding imposition of fine. The applicant prayed for modification of Order of the High Court by which the direction was issued for depositing the fine. Section 357 subsection (2) Cr.P.C. was relied and the Division Bench relying on earlier judgment of Patna High Court in Bharat Mandal & Ors. (Supra) modified the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision in no manner stays the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal. The purpose for which subsection (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. has been enacted is different as noted above and it never contemplates as stay of sentence of fine imposed on accused. 34. We, however, make it clear that Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine without any condition or with conditions. There are no fetters on the power of the Appellate Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 Cr.P.C.. The Appellate Court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine. 35. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen vs. C.B.I. Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, where this Court has made the following observation: "No doubt when the appellate court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the superior court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof would render the very a....