Judgment Intelligence
OtherCentral Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal
2024 INSC 819
Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 24 October 2024
- Bench
- Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 357, 389; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 53, 64, 120B, 419, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 430; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 4, 8(2); Constitution of India — Article 21
Final Outcome
The appeal was disposed of without interfering with the High Court's order, except that the deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 is treated as the condition for suspending the fine; the amount with interest is to be transferred to the Delhi High Court and kept in fixed deposit until the criminal appeal is decided (para 10).
Key holdings
- A direction to pay a fine is a sentence: fine is a punishment under Section 53 IPC and Section 64 speaks of an offender sentenced to a fine (para 5).
- The appellate court may suspend a sentence of fine under Section 389(1) CrPC, with or without conditions (para 6).
- Whether suspension of a fine is conditional depends on the facts and the nature of the offence; a deposit may be required in cheque-dishonour cases, but the approach may differ for IPC offences (para 8).
- A deposit condition must not be impossible to comply with, as it may defeat the right of appeal and violate Article 21 (para 8).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
A Special Judge, CBI (PC Act) convicted the respondent on 27.01.2016 under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, imposing seven years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 95,00,000 and 21 months' simple imprisonment in default (para 1). On 29.09.2016 the Delhi High Court suspended the sentence pending his appeal on a personal bond and surety (para 1). In the CBI's appeal, he deposited Rs. 15,00,000 under an order of 08.08.2023 (para 2). The CBI contended that the fine had not been suspended, so he must serve the default sentence (para 3).
Court's Findings
Section 389(1) empowers the appellate court to suspend "the execution of a sentence or order appealed against" and to release a convict in confinement on bail (para 5). Fine is one of the punishments in Section 53 IPC, and Section 64 speaks of an offender "sentenced to a fine"; so a direction to pay a fine is also a sentence, and there can be a sentence of fine and a further sentence in default (para 5). Following Satyendra Kumar Mehra, such a direction can be suspended under Section 389(1) (para 6). The High Court's order, read plainly, suspended a sentence of both imprisonment and fine, so the CBI's argument failed (para 7). Whether suspension of a fine should be conditional depends on the facts and the nature of the offence; a deposit condition must not be impossible to comply with, as that may defeat the right of appeal and violate Article 21 (para 8). With a total sentence of eight years and nine months and the pendency of criminal appeals, the order could not be faulted (para 9).
Legal Principle
A fine imposed on conviction is a sentence. Under Section 389(1) CrPC the appellate court may suspend it, unconditionally or on conditions suited to the facts and the offence, but a deposit condition must not be so onerous that it defeats the right of appeal (paras 5-6, 8).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 15 SCC 139
The appellate court exercising power under Section 389 CrPC can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine, without any condition or with conditions, including deposit of the fine or part of it.
