HIGH COURT OF €HE-EATTISGARH AT BILASFGR Cf. Mm. No. 317i2007 (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Prssent: Ms. Shannila Singhai, Advocate for the applicant. Shn' Vivek Rathour, Advocate for ths respondent. ORDER (Passed on 20th March 2008) This petition is dilected against the order dated. 18/ 1/ 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 07/ 2007 passed by 15‘ Addl. Sessions Judge Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). It is argued on behalf of the applicant that appellate Court has rejected the application filed under Section 889 (1) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground That applicant has been convicted but has not been sentenced for imprisonment and only sentenced for fine. Order impugned perused. Section 389 (1) provides that execution of sentence or order under appeal may be suspended by the appellate Court. The sentence includes imprisonment and dne. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973: APPLICANT Lambodar Dehuri Slo Narayan Dehmi aged about 47 years, Occu. Business, Rfo Vii}. Jhankarpali, Via—Dhanupaii Thana-Jujomura Dist. ’Sambalpur (Orissa). Versus ‘ RESPONDENT Sujan Singh Malhotra, S/o Late Damhan Singh Ma1ho1ra, Aged about 65 years, R/o Station Road, Thana— Mahasamund Distt. —Mahasamund (C.G.). @ In the instaxlt case applicant was not sentenced for implisonm6nt only the sentence for $16 of Rs. 1 1akh has x Kgf‘‘ ; Z; \ A been imposed. ’I‘Iial Court has held that the provisions of Section 389(1) of Cr‘PC. has no application because the applicant is not sentenced with the imprisonment. Sentence includes the sentence of imprisonment and hne. imprisonment therefore, provisions of Section 389 (1) of Cr.P,C. has no application. Consequently the ordei‘ impugned is not sustainable. The petition is allowed and order impugned is set aside. Trial Court is directed to re—hear the parties, passed the order afresh. Sd/ T.P. SHARMA erxn f Judge