Condition for suspending fines must be practical: SC to courts

The judgment, delivered by a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, highlighted the constitutional concern that overly stringent requirements, such as demanding deposit amounts that are beyond a convicted individual’s means, could obstruct their right to appeal.

The Supreme Court has held that courts ought to avoid imposing impractical conditions when suspending sentences involving fines, stressing the importance of ensuring meaningful access to appeal.

The judgment, delivered by a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, highlighted the constitutional concern that overly stringent requirements, such as demanding deposit amounts that are beyond a convicted individual’s means, could obstruct their right to appeal. (ANI PHOTO)

The judgment, delivered by a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih, highlighted the constitutional concern that overly stringent requirements, such as demanding deposit amounts that are beyond a convicted individual’s means, could obstruct their right to appeal. This, the top court emphasised, would contravene Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty and protection against unreasonable deprivation of the same.

“Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the appellate court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it,” stated the bench.

Illustrating a balancing act within penal law between ensuring punishment for wrongdoing and protecting the rights of the accused, the judgment addressed the conditions under which appellate courts may suspend sentences of fines in cases of conviction. While courts possess the discretion to impose conditional or unconditional suspensions of fines, it noted, they must assess these terms in the context of each case, particularly considering the nature and severity of the offence.

The case in question involved a person convicted by a special CBI court in Delhi in 2016 for offences for cheating, under Sections 420 and 419 of IPC, and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Her received a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹95 lakh, with a default penalty of 21 months additional imprisonment. During the appeal, the Delhi high court suspended the defendant’s sentence on condition of a ₹50,000 bond, allowing him freedom on the primary condition of remaining in the country.

CBI challenged this suspension, arguing that the fine was initially imposed due to an embezzlement of approximately ₹46 lakh, adding the high court did not clarify if the fine itself was suspended.

The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that a full suspension was implied by the high court, especially given that ₹15 lakh of the fine had already been deposited.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging this deposit as a condition for fine suspension, highlighted the importance of proportionate and accessible terms for petitioners facing fines in appeals, and affirmed the suspension of sentence of fine.

“There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially when the respondent has deposited a sum of ₹15 lakh in this Court. The deposit of ₹15 lakh shall be treated as a condition for suspending the sentence of fine,” it held.