Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendera Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand

This appeal has been filed against an order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal NO.176 of 2018 by which High Court by allowing I.A.No. 892 of 2018 filed by the appellant, has   directed to grant suspension of sentence of   the   appellant.   The   High   Court   further   directed   that   the appellant should also deposit the fine amount awarded before the court below. The appellant is aggrieved only against that part of the order by which the High Court directed the deposit of fine amount.

2. The   appellant   was   an   accused   in   R.C.   Case   No.68(A)   of 1996­State (through CBI) vs. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav and   others.   Accused   were   tried   for   the   offence   punishable under Sections 120­B/ read with 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 2 477­A of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court by order dated 24.01.2018 convicted the accused and awarded sentence. The   appellant,   who   was   one   of   the   accused,   was   awarded   the following sentence by the trial court:

3. Aggrieved against the above conviction and sentence order the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2018 before the High   Court.   The   appellant   also   filed   application   praying suspension of sentence. After hearing, the High Court allowed the   application   granting   the   privilege   of   suspension   of sentence   to   the   appellant   and   directing   the   appellant   be released on bail on furnishing  bail bond of Rs.50,000/­ with two sureties. However, while allowing the application the High 3 Court  passed the following direction:

4. The appellant aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the High Court to deposit the fine amount awarded by the court  below has come up in this appeal.

10.   We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned counsel   for   the   parties   and   perused   the   records.     From   the facts brought on record, it is clear that the sentence awarded to   the   appellant   was   a   sentence   of   R.I.   of   five   years   with payment of fine of Rs.25,000/­ and in default S.I. of three months. The said sentence was recorded in four cases and all sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, the fine was part of the   sentence.   The   question   which   is   to   be   answered   in   the present   case   is   as   to   whether   by   virtue   of   Section   357(2) Cr.P.C.,   the   said   fine   which   was   part   of   sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant.

18. An appeal was preferred against the conviction order. The Appellate   Court   while   admitting   the   appeal   directed   the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh each within four weeks from   the   said   date.  Writ   petition   was   filed  questioning  the legality of the said order of the Appellate Court which was dismissed and thereafter the matter was taken to this Court. A submission was raised before this Court that having regard to the   provisions   of   Section   357(2)   of   the   Code,   the   impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as in terms thereof the amount of fine imposed would automatically be suspended.