IMPORTANT POINT
Section 357 Cr.P.C.(2) comes into play only where any order of payment of compensation utilising the fine imposed as sentence under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. or compensation as directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. is made.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

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 1996-State (through CBI) v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav and others. Accused were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B/ read with 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A 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:

"44. Satyendra Kumar Mehra convicted for offence punishable U/s 120-B/ 420, 120-B/ 467, 120-B/ 468 and 120-B/ 471 IPC:

U/s 120B-/ 420 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

U/s 120-B/ 467 IPC R.I. of Five (05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

U/s 120-B/ 468 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

U/s 120-B/ 471 IPC R.I. of Five(05) Years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three (03) Months.

All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone shall be set off."

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 Court passed the following direction:

"Appellant should also deposit the fine amount awarded before court below."

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.

5. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India appearing for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on Section 357 sub-Section (2) of Criminal Procedure Code submits that since the appellant has already filed an appeal before the High Court, the amount of fine imposed by the trial court automatically stands stayed till the decision of the appeal. He submits that in the present case sentence of fine was also imposed by the trial court which is the subject of the appeal, hence Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted in the present case and the High Court should not have directed the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court which direction is in the teeth of provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. And another, (2007) 6 SCC 528.

7. Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court did not commit error in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount awarded by the court below. He submits that provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in the present case. He submits that what is contemplated by sub-Section (2) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is "payment of