Irrigation Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs The Small Scale Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI)

S.B. Majage, J.—The petitioners, who are appellants in Crl.A.No. 358/02 on the file of the Appellate Court have challenged the impugned order dated .10.7.2002, by which the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against them is suspended on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the total fine amount before the Court below (Trial Court) during the period of one month from that date and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below.

According to the petitioners, who were accused in CC No. 30459/00 on the file of the 13th Addl. C.M.M. at Bangalore City and who are appellants before the Appellate Court, in view of the provision contained in Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court was not right in asking them to deposit 20% of the total fine amount, and relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of V. Prasada Rao Vs. The State of A.P. and Another,

Perused the record carefully

In the case on hand, the petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court sentencing to pay a fine of Rs. 17 lakhs and, in default of payment of that fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. However, when challenged by them, the Appellate Court ordered to suspend the same on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the fine amount.

Thus, the Appellate Court has ordered suspension of sentence on condition and not without any condition. In other words, if 20% of fine amount is not deposited, the order of suspension of sentence does not come into operation. No provision of law or authority has been brought to my notice that the Appellate Court has no power or cannot impose any condition while ordering suspension of sentence.

Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision referred to above, vehemently contended that Section 357(2) requires to be read with Section 389 of Cr.P.C., since a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent and consequently, the order of suspension of the sentence passed by the Appellate Court automatically stays the payment of fine amount also and as such, imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount while suspending the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is not proper.

Further, it may be noted that the Appellate Court has not ordered for payment of fine or compensation or any part of fine or compensation to the respondent. It has simply suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioners on deposit of 20% of the fine amount.

What Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. says is as under:

"If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented before the decision of the appeal."

Nowhere it says that the Court of Appeal, while suspending sentence imposed on an accused cannot impose a condition of depositing a part of fine amount. It is true that as per the decision relied on for the petitioner, stay engrafted under the said provision of law equally applies to the compensation granted under sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code, but it cannot be taken to hold or read that the Appellate Court cannot pass a conditional order for suspending a sentence.

According to me, the word "payment" found in Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C., does not refer to the deposit of compensation or fine amount by an accused in pursuance of an order passed by Appellate Court while suspending sentence imposed on an accused since, to my mind, the word "payment'' refers to payment to be made to the person, who is ordered to be paid compensation and not the fine amount, inclusive of compensation amount to be ''deposited'' by accused. The stay engrafted in the said provision of law is with reference to the "payment1 of such amount earlier to the expiry of the appeal period or, where appeal has been preferred, during the pendency of such appeal. So, Section 357 need not and cannot be read with Section 389 of Cr.P.C. In fact, neither the petitioners- appellants applied for, nor the Appellate Court ordered suspension of the sentence relating to compensation of Rs. 16 lakhs only. On the other hand, when the suspension of impugned sentence passed against them is seen with the power given to the Appellate Court u/s 389 of Cr.P.C., besides the ambit or scope of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. , there will not be any difficulty in holding that there is no error of record or infirmity or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court of Sessions suspending the sentence on condition of depositing 20% of the total fine amount imposed on them (petitioners).

In this view of the matter, neither Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the decision relied on for the petitioners is of any help to the petitioners.

At this stage, it may not be out of place to note that the revisional power is to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harassment of treatment, which has resulted some injury to maintenance of law and order and undeserved hardship to individual, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of JAGANNATH CHOUDHARY v. RAMAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS. 2000(5) SCC 659. Further, it is well settled that when the Court concerned has not committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing impugned order, the revisional power should not be invoked. It is equally well settled that in the absence of any manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice, Courts will not be justified in invoking revisional power.

In the case on hand, none of the said things is found to say that the matter requires to be entertained in revision, as no exception can be taken to the impugned order by which sentence has been ordered to be suspended on condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount within a given time.

In the result, the petition is rejected. However, from this day, time of 30 days is given to comply the impugned order.