Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
Pritika Fashions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.Rev.P. 629 of 2014
Decided On : 29-11-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP., Mr. Ravi Dagar, Adv.
The accused must surrender after the dismissal of the appeal, and the appellate court has limitations on its power to suspend the sentence.
Headnote:
Surrender - Suspension of Sentence - Cr.P.C. - 357(3), 353(6), 387, 389, 401 - The court discussed the provisions of Cr.P.C. related to surrender and suspension of sentence, emphasizing the requirement for the accused to surrender after the dismissal of the appeal and the limitations on the appellate court's power to suspend the sentence. The judgment highlighted the importance of obeying the law and preventing absconding after conviction by two concurrent judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner No.2 filed for exemption from surrendering and suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition after the appeal against the judgment and sentence was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application for exemption from surrendering and suspension of sentence, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to surrender after the dismissal of the appeal and the absence of effective orders for suspension of sentence.
Issues: Exemption from surrendering and suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused must surrender after the dismissal of the appeal, and the appellate court has limitations on its power to suspend the sentence.
Final Decision: The application for exemption from surrendering and suspension of sentence was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
CRL.M.A. 33858/2018
1. The petitioner No.2 has moved the present application for exemption from surrendering and granting suspension of sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition.
2. In the present case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate announced the judgment on 19.2.2014 and passed the order on sentence on 28.2.2014. The relevant portion of the order on sentence dated 28.2.2014 is reproduced below:
“the convict No. 1 i.e. Pritika Fashions is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 34,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. Convict No. 2 is sentenced to simple imprisonment of 3 months along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months.”
3. The petitioner No.2 filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being Criminal Appeal No.17/2014 against the aforesaid judgment and the Appellate Court, on receipt of the fresh appeal vide order dated 31.3.2014 passed the following order:
“Heard.
Appeal is admitted. Application for suspension of sentence is allowed for reason stated therein and sentence is suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. The appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond/personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one local surety of the like amount subject to satisfaction of the concerned trial court.
Copy of the order be sent to the concerned court.
Put up for arguments on 09.4.2014.
In the meantime TCR be summoned for the next date of hearing.”
4. Thereafter, the Appellate Court, vide order dated 29.8.2014 while dismissing the appeal, passed the following order:
“Arguments heard.
Vide my detailed separate order of even date application u/s 340 cr.p.c. moved by the appellant/accused is dismissed.
Vide my detail order of even date, the present appeal is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed.
TCR if any be sent back to Ld. Trial Court with copy of order for information. File be consigned to record room.”
5. The aforesaid proceedings demonstrate that the appeal was dismissed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the sentence of the appellant awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide orders dated 19.2.2014 and 28.2.2014. The judgment and order dated 29.8.2014 clearly demonstrate that the petitioner No.2 was not taken into custody. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 filed the present criminal revision petition on 15.9.2014, however, after the judgment dated 29.8.2014 the petitioner No.2 neither surrendered nor any order was passed by this Court for the suspension of order on sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 submitted that the petitioner No.2 filed an application CRL.M.(BAIL) 10706/2014 for suspension of order on sentence which was not heard by this Court. However, the order-sheet of this case demonstrates that the aforesaid application was not pressed by the petitioner No.2 at any point of time. But the fact remains that whether the application was pressed or not pressed, this Court never passed any order for the suspension of sentence at any point of time.
6. In the case titled as Krishan Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab in CRM-34325-2015 in CRR-3960-2015 (O&M), it is held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:
“...Plea has been opposed by the State counsel. He has referred to provision of Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C. According to him, in terms of said provision, if an accused is not in custody, he would be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except when his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is of fine only or he is acquitted. According to him, at the time of judgment to be delivered by the appellate court, provision of Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C. would apply as envisaged by Section 387 Cr.P.C. In the instant case petitioner was required to be present by the appellate court, but he absented himself. Efforts were made by the
