RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
STATE (DELHI ADMN.) DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application has been made for suspension of sentence by the
appellant, who has been convicted under Section 467/471/120-B-IPC and sentenced
to undergo 07 years RI and fine of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant had undergone
only one year and three months approximately. It is submitted that the hearing
of appeal would take long time therefore, sentence of the appellant should be
(2.) While suspending the sentence, the Court has to see the
heinousness of the crime, the period of sentence already undergone and the
question of fact and law raised by the applicant. Supreme Court in recent
judgment in case Gomti v. Thakurdas and Ors. 2007 Crl.L.J.2431 observed as
9. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence
pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction
between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of
Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in
writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail
or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly
indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and
the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be
passed as a matter of routine.
10. The appellate Court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to
record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution
of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems
to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the
earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail.
11. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there was no
allegation of misuse of liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect
of bail granted during trial loses significance when on completion of trial, the
accused persons have been found guilty. The mere fact that during the period
when the accused persons were on bail during trial there was no misuse of
liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant
of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is
whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter
grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in
12. In Vijay Kumar v. Narender and others (2002 (9) SCC 364) and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another (2002 (9) SCC 366), it was held by this Court
that in cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
The impugned order of the High Court does not meet the requirement. In Vijay
Kumar's case (supra) it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a
case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC,
the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation
made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the
accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious
offence of murder.
The above position was highlighted in Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others [2004 (7)
SCC 638] and in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2005(5) SCC 281].
(3.) In the present case, the accused along with others was involved
in forging of stamps of Issuing Authority of Kisan Vikas Patras and sold forged
Kisan Vikas Patras as genuine knowing those to be forged. The total recovery of
the forged Kisan Vikas Patras from the accused persons was of Rs.46,80,000/-
Forged stamps of various post offices were also recovered. After considering
the entire evidence that have come on record, the trial Court convicted the
accused persons in above provisions. Considering the huge amount involved in
the forged Kisan Vikas Patras, the forged postal stamps recovered from him and
the role played by the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant has been
in jail only for 01 year 03 months, out of the total sentence of 07 years, I
consider it would not be appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellant at
The application is hereby dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.