2024 INSC 819 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4277 OF 2024

CENTRAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION        …APPELLANT

VERSUS

ASHOK SIRPAL                                   …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECT

1.The factual controversy which arises in this appeal

is   very   limited.   The   respondent   ­   accused   no.2,   by

judgment and order dated 27

th

 January 2016 passed by

the Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), Karkardooma Courts,

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 1 of 13

East   District,   Delhi,   was   convicted   for   the   offences

punishable   under   Section   120B   read   with   Sections

420/419 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’)

and   Sections   13(1)(d)   and   13(2)   of   the   Prevention   of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). He was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven

years for each offence. He was sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.95,00,000/­. In default of the payment of the fine, he

was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of 21 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to

run concurrently. The respondent preferred an appeal

against   conviction   before   the   Delhi   High   Court.   The

appeal was admitted. By the impugned order dated 29

th

September 2016, the sentence was suspended by the

learned   Single   Judge   of   Delhi   High   Court   on

the respondent furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/­ with one surety of the like amount subject to

the   satisfaction  of   the   learned   Trial   Judge.   A   further

condition was imposed on the respondent of not leaving

the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.

2.On   19

th

  March   2018,   while   issuing   notice,   this

Court passed the following order:

“Delay condoned.

The   learned   Additional   Solicitor

General   appearing   for   the   petitioner   –

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 2 of 13

CBI submits that the respondent has not

deposited   the   fine.   The   submission   is

recorded.

Issue notice.”

On 8

th

 August 2023, the following order was passed:

“ The   learned   Senior   Counsel

appearing   for   the   respondent,   on

instructions, states that the respondent

will deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.15

lakhs within three months from today. 

Only in view of this statement, we

adjourn this petition till 21.11.2023 to

be listed on the top of the Board. 

We   make   it   clear   that   on   the

failure of the respondent to deposit the

said amount, the order granting bail to

the respondent is liable to be set aside. 

As and when the said amount is

deposited, the Registry will invest it in

the interest bearing deposit with auto

renewal facility.”

In terms of the said order, the respondent has deposited

a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­, which has been invested in a

fixed deposit under the orders of this Court. 

SUBMISSIONS

3.Shri   K   M   Nataraj,   learned   Additional   Solicitor

General of India, pointed out that the finding against the

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 3 of 13

respondent and co­accused by the Special Court is that

there was an embezzlement of approximately a sum of

Rs.46,00,000/­. He pointed out that what is suspended

under the impugned order is the substantive sentence of

7   years.   As   the   respondent   has   paid   only   a   sum   of

Rs.15,00,000/­   out   of   the   total   fine   amount   of

Rs.95,00,000/­ and as the direction to pay a fine has not

been   suspended   under   the   impugned   order,   the

respondent   will   have   to   be   taken   into   custody   for

undergoing sentence imposed in default of payment of

a fine. Learned ASG relied upon the decision of this Court

in the case of  Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of

Jharkhand

1

. He pointed out the interpretation put by

this   Court   to   Section   357   of   the   Code   of   Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’). He relied upon

what is held in paragraph 36 of the said decision. He

urged that there is a power to suspend the fine conferred

by Section 389 of the CrPC with or without condition. He

submitted that the impugned order does not record that

the   order   of   fine   has   been   suspended.   He,   therefore,

submitted that the impugned order would not help the

respondent   to   avoid   enforcement   of   the sentence   in

default of payment of the fine. He submitted that, in any

case,   the   High   Court   could   not   have   granted   an

1 (2018) 15 SCC 139

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 4 of 13

unconditional   stay   of   the   order   directing   payment   of

a fine   of   Rs.95,00,000/­.  He   submitted  that   until   the

impugned order was passed, the respondent had only

been incarcerated for about 8 months. 

4.Shri Naidu, learner senior counsel representing the

respondent, submitted that the entire sentence, including

the   sentence   of   fine,   has   been   suspended   by   the

impugned   order.   He   submitted   that   the   substantive

sentence and the sentence in default of fine are limited

period sentences. As the appeal against conviction is not

likely to be heard in the near future, the High Court has

rightly suspended the sentence.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5.Section 389 of the CrPC reads thus:

“389.   Suspension   of   sentence   pending

the appeal; release of appellant on bail.—

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted

person,   the   Appellate   Court   may,   for

reasons to be recorded by it in writing,

order that the execution of the sentence

or order appealed against be suspended

and, also, if he is in confinement, that he

be released on bail, or on his own bond:

 Provided   that   the   Appellate   Court

shall, before releasing on bail or on his

own   bond   a   convicted   person   who   is

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 5 of 13

convicted of an offence punishable with

death   or   imprisonment   for   life   or

imprisonment for a term of not less than

ten years, shall give opportunity to the

Public Prosecutor for showing cause in

writing against such release:

Provided further that in cases where a

convicted person is released on bail it

shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to

file an application for the cancellation of

the bail.

(2) The power conferred by this section

on an Appellate Court may be exercised

also by the High Court in the case of an

appeal by a convicted person to a Court

subordinate thereto.

(3) Where the convicted person satisfies

the Court by which he is convicted that

he   intends   to   present   an   appeal,   the

Court shall, —

(i) where such person, being on bail,

is sentenced to imprisonment for a term

not exceeding three years, or

(ii) where the offence of which such

person has been convicted is a bailable

one, and he is on bail,

order   that   the   convicted   person   be

released on bail, unless there are special

reasons for refusing bail, for such period

as will afford sufficient time to present

the appeal and obtain the orders of the

Appellate   Court   under   sub­section   (1);

and the sentence of imprisonment shall,

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 6 of 13

so long as he is so released on bail, be

deemed to be suspended.

(4)   When   the   appellant   is   ultimately

sentenced to imprisonment for a term or

to imprisonment for life, the time during

which he is so released shall be excluded

in computing the term for which he is so

sentenced.”

The power of suspension of sentence under Section 389

of   the   CrPC   (Corresponding   to   Section   430   of   the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is vested in

the   Appellate   Court   dealing   with   an   appeal   against

the order of conviction. On a plain reading of sub­section

(1), the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the

execution of a sentence or order appealed against. If the

appellant/accused is in confinement, there is a power

vesting in the Appellate Court to release him on bail

pending   the   final   disposal   of   the   appeal.   In   case   of

offences covered by the first proviso to sub­section (1) of

Section 389, there is a mandate to give an opportunity to

the Public Prosecutor to show cause in writing against

such release before releasing a convicted person on bail.

As stated earlier, the substantive sentence imposed on

the respondent is rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

In   addition,   there   is   a   direction   to   pay   a fine   of

Rs.95,00,000/­.   There   are   five   kinds   of   punishment

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 7 of 13

provided in Section 53 in Chapter III of the IPC, which

reads thus:

“53.   “Punishments”.—The   punishments

to which offenders are liable under the

provisions of this Code are—

First—Death;

Secondly—Imprisonment for life;

Thirdly— [* * *];

Fourthly—Imprisonment, which is of two

descriptions, namely: —

(1)   Rigorous,   that   is,   with   hard

labour;

(2) Simple;

Fifthly—Forfeiture of property;

Sixthly—Fine.”

Section 64, which is a part of the same chapter III, reads

thus:

“64.   Sentence   of   imprisonment   for

non­payment of fine­ In every case, of

an offence punishable with imprisonment

as well as fine, in which the offender is

sentenced to a fine, whether with or

without imprisonment,

and   in   every   case   of   an   offence

punishable with imprisonment or fine, or

with fine only, in which the offender is

sentenced to a fine, 

It   shall   be   competent   to   the   Court

which sentences such offender to direct

by   the   sentence   that,   in   default   of

payment of the fine, the offender shall

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 8 of 13

suffer imprisonment for a certain term,

which imprisonment shall be in excess of

any other imprisonment to which he may

have been sentenced or to which he may

be   liable   under   a   commutation   of   a

sentence.” 

                                     (emphasis added)

Sections   4   and   8(2)   of   the   Bharatiya   Nyaya   Sanhita,

2023, are the corresponding Sections. Section 64 of IPC

uses   the   expression   ‘offender   is   sentenced   to   a   fine’.

Moreover,   the fine   is   one   of   the   five   punishments

provided   in   Section   53.   Thus,   it   is   evident   that   the

direction   to   pay   a fine   issued   against   the   convicted

accused is also a sentence. Under Section 64, the Court

is empowered to direct that in default of payment of the

fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a specific

term   as   directed   therein.   Therefore,   there   can   be   a

sentence of fine and a further sentence in default of

compliance with the sentence of fine. 

6.In paragraph no.36 of the decision of this Court in

the case of Satyendra Kumar Mehra

1

,

this Court held

thus:

“36. We, however, make it clear that the

appellate   court   while   exercising   power

under Section 389 CrPC can suspend the

sentence of imprisonment as well as of

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 9 of 13

fine   without   any   condition   or   with

conditions. There are no fetters on the

power   of   the   appellate   court   while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 389

CrPC.   The   appellate   court   could   have

suspended the sentence and fine both or

could have directed for deposit of fine or

part of fine.”

Thus, while convicting an accused, if a direction is issued

against   him   to   pay   a   fine,   such   a   direction   can   be

suspended in the exercise of power under sub­section (1)

of Section 389 of the CrPC.

7.Coming back to the impugned order, it is clearly

mentioned therein that the respondent's sentence stands

suspended pending the hearing of the appeal subject to

compliance of furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/­. Perusal of the impugned order shows that

the High Court was conscious of the fact that as the

embezzlement alleged against the respondent and other

accused persons was to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/­, the

Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine

of  Rs.95,00,000/­.   The  order   notes   that   the   sentence

imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment

and payment of fine. Therefore, on a plain reading of the

impugned order, the argument of learned ASG that the

sentence   of   the   fine   was   not   suspended   cannot   be

accepted. 

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 10 of 13

8.While   suspending   the   sentence,   especially   the

sentence   of   fine,   the   Appellate   Court   can   impose

conditions.   Whether   the   order   of   suspension   of   the

sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional

depends on the facts of each case and especially the

nature   of   the offence.   For   example,   when   there   is   a

sentence of fine imposed while convicting an accused for

the   offence   punishable   under   Section   138   of   the

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, depending upon the

facts   of   the   case,   the   Appellate   Court   may   impose   a

condition of depositing the fine amount or part thereof

while suspending the sentence. However, the approach of

the Court may be different in case of offences punishable

under   the   IPC   and   cognate   legislations.   Whenever   a

prayer   is   for   suspension   of   the   sentence   of   fine,   the

Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of

fine   can   be   suspended   unconditionally   or   subject   to

conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that

if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed

while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should

not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to

comply   with   it.   Such   a   condition   may   amount   to

defeating   his   right   of   appeal   against   the order   of

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 11 of 13

conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article

21 of the Constitution. 

9.In the facts of the case, the total sentence, including

substantive sentence and sentence in default of fine, will

be imprisonment   for   eight   years   and   nine   months.

Considering   the   huge   pendency   of   criminal   appeals

triable by a Single Judge and considering the limited

period sentence, it is not possible to find fault with the

impugned   order   passed   way   back   on   29

th

  September

2016. 

10.Hence,   there   is   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the

impugned   order,   especially   when   the   respondent   has

deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­ in this Court.   The

deposit of Rs.15,00,000/­ shall be treated as a condition

for   suspending   the   sentence   of   fine.   Accordingly,   the

appeal is disposed of with the above modification. The

amount of Rs.15,00,000/­ deposited by the respondent

has   been   invested   by   the   Registry   in   fixed   deposit.

Immediately after maturity of the existing fixed deposit,

the Registry shall transfer the amount of Rs.15,00,000/­

with interest accrued thereon to the Delhi High Court.

The   High   Court   shall   invest   the   said   amount   in   an

appropriate fixed deposit with any nationalised bank till

the disposal   of   the   criminal   appeal.   Order   regarding

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 12 of 13

disbursal/withdrawal of the amount and interest accrued

thereon shall be passed at the time of final disposal of the

appeal.  

……………………..J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

……………………..J.

(Augustine George Masih)

New Delhi;

October 24, 2024

Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 13 of 13