Legal Vidhiya

SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 

Admin
Spread the love

SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 

Citation2018
Date of Judgment23 March 2018
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case TypeCRIMINAL CASE
AppellantSATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA
RespondentTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND 
BenchA. BHUSHAN, A. SIKRI
ReferredSECTIONS – 120B r/w 409, 468, 471, and 477A of the IPC r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988120B r/w 420,   120B r/w 467, 120B r/w 468 and 120B r/w 471 IPC, 1860

FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused was tried for the offense which was punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 r/w Section 13(1)(c), (d), and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court ordered the accused and awarded a sentence. However, the appellant, who was one of the accused, was awarded the sentence by the trial court. He was convicted for an offense punishable under sections 120B/420, 120B/467, 120B/468, and 120B/471 Indian Penal Code, 1862. 

The appellant applied and he prayed for suspension of his sentence. After the hearing, the High Court allowed the appellant and granted the privilege of suspension of sentence and directed him to be released on bail for the bail bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties.

Learned counsel of the appellant relies on Section 357(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 where he submits that since the appellant has already filed an appeal in the High Court, the amount of fine imposed by the trial court stands automatically and stayed till the decision of the appeal when it comes. He said that the fine was imposed by the trial court which was the subject of the appeal, and hence Section 357(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the present case, and that the High Court should not be directed by the appellant to deposit the fine amount which was awarded by the trial court.

They considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and their records. But it was clear that the sentence that was awarded to the appellant was of five years with payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/. The sentence was recorded in four cases and the fine was part of the sentence. The said fine which was part of the sentence automatically stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant. 

ISSUES

ARGUMENTS 

The Learned Additional Solicitor General refused the submission of learned counsel for the appellant contends so that the High Court did not commit any kind of error in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the court to the accused. He submits that provisions of Section 357(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are not used in this case and he submits that the contemplation under Section 357(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is “payment of the compensation as envisaged in Section 357(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973”. 

He submits that the stay on payment of the compensation is entirely different from the stay of fine which is a part of the sentence imposed on the accused by the court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the judgment of the Court which was reported in the case, Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 528.

After that, he submits to the Court which was held in the case, Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2001) 2 SCC 416, it was also upheld that a similar order passed by the High Court where  Court directed the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- as a fine to suspend the sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the case Stanny Felix Pinto (supra) cannot be used to interpret Section 357(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

PRECEDENT CASES

JUDGEMENT

The High Court directed that the appellant should deposit the fine amount awarded before the court. The appellant was against the part of the order that has been delivered by the High Court directing the deposit of the fine. The Court noted that a fine of Rs.25,000/ which was imposed on the Company and compensation of Rs.15 lakh was directed to be paid by the Chairman of the Company. The Section which is included are as follows:- 

Order to pay compensation is a part of judgment where the Court directs the payment for compensation. The Court may pass judgment and order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied. The fine is thus contemplated to be utilized for compensating different circumstances which were enumerated in Section 357(1) & (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 

There will be no such payment that shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal which has elapsed, or if an appeal is presented, before the decision of the appeal”. Thus, it was prohibited under Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that the payment of compensation of the fine was not paid till the period allowed for presenting the appeal which has elapsed, or an appeal is filed then before the court.

The applicability of Section 357(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 throws considerable light on finding the object and purpose of the particular section. The section is only attracted when the Court orders payment of compensation and is not attracted in any other case.   It is well-settled that the heading of the section plays a role and the interpretation of the prescribed section. 

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132851554/

WRITTEN BY ABHIPRA AGARWAL AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VDIHIYA.

Exit mobile version