Supreme Court clarifies suspension of sentence including fine under Section 389 CrPC: CBI vs. Ashok Sirpal (2024) INSC 819 (24 October 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 819

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

When a convicted person appeals their sentence, can the suspension of that sentence also mean that the fine imposed is suspended? This question was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of India. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically whether the power to suspend a sentence includes the power to suspend the payment of a fine. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the scope of the appellate court’s powers regarding the suspension of sentences, including fines.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih. Justice Abhay S. Oka authored the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent, Ashok Sirpal, was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on 27th January 2016 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for each offence, along with a fine of Rs. 95,00,000. In default of payment of the fine, he was to undergo an additional 21 months of simple imprisonment.

Ashok Sirpal appealed his conviction to the Delhi High Court, which admitted the appeal. On 29th September 2016, the Delhi High Court suspended his sentence, allowing him to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge. He was also restricted from leaving the country without prior permission from the Trial Court.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the suspension of the sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court convicted Ashok Sirpal and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a substantial fine. The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence upon appeal, which led to the CBI appealing to the Supreme Court. The CBI contended that the High Court’s order did not explicitly suspend the fine, and therefore, the respondent should be taken into custody for non-payment of the fine. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was aware of the fine imposed and the total sentence, including the default imprisonment for non-payment of the fine.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers the Appellate Court to suspend the execution of a sentence or order appealed against. It also allows the release of the appellant on bail if they are in confinement. The court noted that this power extends to the suspension of both imprisonment and fine. The relevant part of the section reads as follows:

  “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…”

• Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section lists the various types of punishments that can be imposed, including imprisonment and fine.

  “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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of a fine. It states that the court can direct that in default of payment of a fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term.

  “64. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment 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 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.”

The court highlighted that a fine is a form of punishment under Section 53 of the IPC, and a direction to pay a fine is also a sentence. Therefore, the power to suspend a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC includes the power to suspend the sentence of a fine.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellant (CBI):

• The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the Special Court found an embezzlement of approximately Rs. 46,00,000.
• The ASG pointed out that the High Court’s order only suspended the substantive sentence of 7 years, not the fine of Rs. 95,00,000.
• Since the fine was not suspended and only Rs. 15,00,000 was deposited, the respondent should be taken into custody for the default sentence.
• The ASG relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand, emphasizing that while Section 389 of the CrPC allows for the suspension of a fine, the High Court did not explicitly do so.
• The ASG contended that the High Court could not have granted an unconditional stay on the order directing payment of the fine.

Submissions by the Respondent (Ashok Sirpal):

• The senior counsel for the respondent argued that the High Court’s order suspended the entire sentence, including the fine.
• The counsel submitted that both the substantive sentence and the sentence in default of fine were limited period sentences.
• Given the long time it would take for the appeal to be heard, the High Court rightly suspended the sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the suspension of a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC includes the suspension of a fine imposed as part of the sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court referred to Satyendra Kumar Mehra v. State of Jharkhand [(2018) 15 SCC 139] to emphasize that the appellate court has the power to suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine without any condition or with conditions.
• The Court analyzed Section 389 of the CrPC to determine the scope of the appellate court’s power to suspend sentences, concluding that it includes the power to suspend the fine.
• The Court referred to Section 53 of the IPC to highlight that a fine is one of the punishments.
• The Court analyzed Section 64 of the IPC to explain the sentence of imprisonment in default of fine.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The interpretation of Section 389 of the CrPC to include the power to suspend fines.
• The understanding that a fine is a form of punishment under Section 53 of the IPC.
• The need to ensure that the right of appeal is not defeated by imposing impossible conditions for suspending a fine.
• The fact that the High Court was aware of the total sentence, including the fine and default imprisonment.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the relevant provisions, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that a fine is a sentence and can be suspended under Section 389 of the CrPC. The Court also highlighted the importance of not imposing conditions that would make it impossible for an appellant to exercise their right to appeal.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of the case.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “The deposit of Rs.15,00,000/­ shall be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the power to suspend a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC includes the power to suspend the sentence of a fine.
• Appellate Courts can impose conditions while suspending a sentence of fine, but such conditions should not be impossible to comply with.
• The judgment ensures that the right to appeal is not defeated by imposing onerous conditions related to the payment of fine.
• This ruling provides clarity on the powers of appellate courts in dealing with sentences involving fines.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the sum of Rs. 15,00,000 deposited by the respondent should be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine. The Court also directed that the amount be transferred to the Delhi High Court and invested in a fixed deposit until the disposal of the criminal appeal. The High Court will pass orders regarding the disbursal or withdrawal of the amount at the final disposal of the appeal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

This judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power to suspend a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC includes the power to suspend the sentence of a fine. This clarifies the scope of the appellate court’s powers and ensures that the right to appeal is not hampered by unreasonable conditions related to fines. This decision reinforces the principle that a fine is a form of sentence and can be suspended like any other sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Sirpal clarifies that the suspension of a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC includes the suspension of a fine. This decision ensures that appellate courts have the power to suspend both imprisonment and fines, providing a balanced approach to the administration of justice. The Court also emphasized that while conditions can be imposed for suspending a fine, they should not be so onerous as to defeat the right to appeal. This ruling provides clarity and guidance for future cases involving the suspension of sentences and fines.