2001 AIR(SC) 651 ; 2001 1 AllMR 852 ; 2001 BomCR(Cri) 500 ; 2001 1 BomLR 754 ; 2001 CrLJ 1039 ; 2001 DCR 14 ; 2001 2 SCC 416 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 345 ; 2001 1 Supreme 194
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Stanny Felix Pinto —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
Decided on 15-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocate.
Very important point
While suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.389
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138
(A) This case pertains to the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the suspension of sentence for a person convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The core legal question involves whether a superior court, while granting a suspension of sentence during a revision or appeal, can legally impose a condition requiring the remittance of a portion of the fine imposed by the trial court as a prerequisite for such suspension.
(B) The court affirmed that it is advisable and legally permissible for a court to impose a condition for the remittance of the fine amount (or a portion thereof) when suspending a sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ensure the interests of justice are served.
Facts of the case:
A person convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine of twenty lakh rupees. The High Court, while entertaining a revision petition, granted a suspension of the sentence on the condition that four lakh rupees be remitted to the court within a specified time. The appellant challenged this condition as being excessive.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court acted correctly and in the interest of justice. It observed that since the total fine imposed was twenty lakh rupees, the requirement to remit four lakh rupees was neither unjust nor unconscionable.
Issues:
Whether the High Court is justified in imposing a condition for the partial remittance of a fine as a prerequisite for suspending a sentence in a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
When a convicted person seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal or revision, the court may impose a condition to remit the fine or a portion of it, especially if the amount is heavy, to balance the rights of the parties and the interests of justice.
Result:
Appeal dismissed.
(A) This case pertains to the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the suspension of sentence for a person convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The core legal question involves whether a superior court, while granting a suspension of sentence during a revision or appeal, can legally impose a condition requiring the remittance of a portion of the fine imposed by the trial court as a prerequisite for such suspension.
(B) The court affirmed that it is advisable and legally permissible for a court to impose a condition for the remittance of the fine amount (or a portion thereof) when suspending a sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ensure the interests of justice are served.
Facts of the case:
A person convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine of twenty lakh rupees. The High Court, while entertaining a revision petition, granted a suspension of the sentence on the condition that four lakh rupees be remitted to the court within a specified time. The appellant challenged this condition as being excessive.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court acted correctly and in the interest of justice. It observed that since the total fine imposed was twenty lakh rupees, the requirement to remit four lakh rupees was neither unjust nor unconscionable.
Issues:
Whether the High Court is justified in imposing a condition for the partial remittance of a fine as a prerequisite for suspending a sentence in a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
When a convicted person seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal or revision, the court may impose a condition to remit the fine or a portion of it, especially if the amount is heavy, to balance the rights of the parties and the interests of justice.
Result:
Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. When a person was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.