The Supreme Court of India, in a notable judgment delivered today, ruled that while suspending the sentence of fine in a criminal appeal, the appellate court must ensure that conditions imposed do not render compliance impossible, as this could infringe upon the appellant’s right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling was pronounced in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal (Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024) by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Background of the Case
The case involves Ashok Sirpal, who was convicted by the Special CBI Court under Sections 120B read with 420 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sirpal was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for each offense and fined ₹95 lakh. His appeal to the Delhi High Court led to the suspension of his substantive sentence pending the appeal, but he was required to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a surety, and his sentence of fine was not explicitly suspended.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the appellant in this case, contended that since Sirpal had not paid the entire fine, he should be taken into custody to serve the default sentence of 21 months in addition to the substantive sentence. The respondent, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Naidu, argued that the High Court’s order of suspension covered both imprisonment and fine, making the default sentence inapplicable.
Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined several legal issues in this case:
1. Scope of Section 389 of CrPC:
– The Court explored the extent of the appellate court’s power under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the suspension of sentences in criminal appeals. It noted that the provision allows for the suspension of both imprisonment and fine, either with or without conditions, based on the specifics of each case.
2. Nature of Fine as a Sentence:
– The Court emphasized that the imposition of a fine constitutes a sentence under Section 53 of the IPC, along with the provision for additional imprisonment in default of payment as outlined in Section 64 of the IPC. Justice Oka observed, “The sentence of fine is as much a part of the punishment as imprisonment, and its suspension should be governed by the same principles.”
3. Impact on Right to Appeal (Article 21):
– The Court ruled that while suspending the sentence of fine, the conditions imposed must be reasonable and feasible. It stated, “If a condition for the deposit of a fine is imposed in such a way that it becomes impossible for the appellant to comply, it may defeat the appellant’s right to appeal,” which could potentially violate Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty.
Key Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court made several crucial observations in its judgment:
– “The appellate court, while exercising its power under Section 389 of CrPC, has complete discretion to suspend both the substantive sentence and the sentence of fine. However, the conditions for suspension should not be so onerous that they infringe upon the appellant’s right to appeal.”
– “A balance must be maintained between ensuring compliance with the fine and preserving the appellant’s right to appeal, especially in cases where the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future.”
– “Imposing conditions that are impossible to fulfill can effectively nullify the appellant’s access to justice, which is constitutionally protected under Article 21.”
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the suspension of the fine, subject to the deposit of ₹15 lakh, which had already been made by the respondent. The bench also directed that the deposited amount be transferred to the Delhi High Court for fixed deposit, pending the outcome of the criminal appeal. The Court clarified that the High Court’s order from September 29, 2016, which suspended both imprisonment and fine, was appropriate given the circumstances, considering the pendency of appeals and the limited duration of the sentence.
Counsel and Parties Involved
The appeal was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by Additional Solicitor General Shri K M Nataraj. The respondent, Ashok Sirpal, was represented by Senior Counsel Shri Naidu. The respondent had already deposited ₹15 lakh as per an earlier direction of the Supreme Court, and this amount was treated as part of the suspension of the sentence of fine in the present case.
