We have heard Mr. Ishaan George, learned counsel for
the Appellant accused and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned
counsel for the State. Having considered the matter in detail,
we are of the opinion that taking into account the purpose and
object of Section 357, read with its enunciation in Dilip S.
Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. [2007 (6) SCC 528], the
direction of the High Court granting suspension of sentence
subject to the condition of depositing 50% of compensation is
not justified.{Para 6}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(@ Out of SLP(Crl.) No.10302/2023)
NIKHIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in Criminal
Application (APL) No.570/2023 dated 02-05-2023 by which the
High Court granted suspension of sentence by imposing a
condition of depositing 50% of the compensation of
Rs.2,86,00,125/-, which amounts to Rs.1.43 crores.
3. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and
apart from a sentence of four years six months rigorous
imprisonment under Sections 409 and 201 IPC, he was also
directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.86 crores. Against the
conviction and imposition of compensation, the appellant
filed a criminal appeal and sought suspension of sentence,
which was rejected by an order dated 03.04.2023.
4. Challenging the above said order passed by the Criminal
Appellate Court, the appellant approached the High Court by
way of a criminal application in which the High Court
passed the following Order:
“17…… His right of appeal would get frustrated,
if he is not released on bail by suspending the
sentence during pendency of the appeal. In my
view, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances, the case in question is a fit
case to suspend the sentence and release the
accused on bail, albeit, subject to appropriate
condition with regard to payment of
compensation.
18. The accused has misappropriated the amount
of the customers/depositors of the bank. The
offence has been proved against the accused.
The amount of compensation is Rs.2,86,00,125/-.
By applying any standard, it must be held that
the gravity and enormity of the
misappropriation is quite serious. The genuine
and innocent customers of the bank have been
duped and denied the benefit of their money.
The accused is under an obligation to pay the
compensation. Even if he undergoes the default
sentence, he cannot be exonerated from paying
the compensation. It is to be noted that at
this stage the submission advanced on behalf of
the accused that he has chance to succeed in
appeal, cannot be made basis for not directing
the accused to deposit the compensation. In my
view, considering the facts and circumstances,
the interest of justice would be met if the
accused is directed to deposit 50% of the
amount of compensation as a condition for
suspension of sentence. With this, I pass the
following order
19. The application is allowed.
i] The order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Chandrapur in
Criminal Revision No.09/2023, is set aside.
ii] The application (Exh.5) for suspension of
substantive sentence is allowed, subject to a
condition that the applicant shall furnish
solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
iii] The applicant/accused shall also deposit
50% of the compensation awarded by the impugned
order, being a condition for suspension of
sentence and his release on bail.
iv] Liberty is granted to the accused/applicant
to apply before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
It is made clear that if such an application is
made by the accused, it shall be allowed and
the appeal be disposed of within six months
from the date of application.
20. With these directions, the application
stands disposed of.”
5. While admitting the appeal, this Court by order dated
06.09.2023 suspended the direction to deposit 50% of the
compensation awarded.
6. We have heard Mr. Ishaan George, learned counsel for
the Appellant accused and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned
counsel for the State. Having considered the matter in detail,
we are of the opinion that taking into account the purpose and
object of Section 357, read with its enunciation in Dilip S.
Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. [2007 (6) SCC 528], the
direction of the High Court granting suspension of sentence
subject to the condition of depositing 50% of compensation is
not justified.
7. In view of the above, we allow the appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10302 of 2023 filed against
the Criminal Application [APL] No. 570 of 2023 dated 02.05.2023
4
and set aside the direction to deposit 50% compensation amount
awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge.
..……………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
..……………………J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
New Delhi
July 11, 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment