Courts should not impose conditions that are impossible to comply with while suspending the sentence of paying a fine in criminal cases, observed the Supreme Court on Thursday [CBI v. Ashok Sirpai].
A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih explained that a sentence to pay a fine can be suspended - without or without conditions - when an accused person makes such a prayer in his appeal against a criminal court's conviction and/or sentence.
However, if any conditions are imposed, such conditions should be realistic and not such that they defeat the right to appeal itself, the Court said.
"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 conviction which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution," it observed in the October 24 ruling.
The Court made the observation while upholding a Delhi High Court for the suspension of sentence in a matter concerning a corruption case filed against one Ashok Sirpal.
Sirpal had been accused of being part of a conspiracy concerning the misappropriation of about ₹46 lakhs. He was convicted in the case by a Delhi trial court in 2016 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each offence (to run concurrently) and to pay a fine of ₹95 lakhs.
He challenged this trial court verdict before the Delhi High Court and also urged the High Court to suspend his sentence until his appeal is decided.
The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence on the condition that Sirpal deposit ₹50,000 and furnish one surety.
The CBI challenged the suspension of sentence before the Supreme Court, where it argued that the High Court's order of sentence suspension only concerned the prison sentence and not the sentence of fine.
The CBI contended that Sirpal was yet to pay the ₹95 lakh fine imposed by the trial court. The Supreme Court asked Sirpal to deposit ₹15 lakhs in an interim order, which amount was deposited by him by the time the appeal was finally heard.
Even so, the CBI argued that Sirpal should be taken back into custody since he has only paid ₹15 lakhs out of the trial court's ₹95 lakh fine. The central agency maintained that the High Court had only suspended Sirpal's prison sentence and not the fine.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this argument.
"The order notes that the sentence imposed on the respondent (Sirpal) was of both imprisonment and payment of fine. Therefore, on a plain reading of the impugned order, the argument of the learned ASG that sentence of fine was not suspended cannot be accepted," the Court said.
It added that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence while Sirpal's appeal remains pending, given the huge pendency of criminal appeals before the High Court.
"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 29th September 2016," the top court said.
It added that the ₹15 lakh deposit paid by Sirpal during the appeal before the Supreme Court can be treated as a condition for the suspension of his sentence.
The top court modified the High Court's order to this extent and disposed of the CBI's appeal.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the CBI.
Senior Advocate Dema Seshadri Naidu appeared for Sirpal.
[Read Judgment]