MAYURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN Vs. C B I
LAWS(SC)-2006-6-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on June 16,2006

MAYURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN Appellant
VERSUS
C B I Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SIMBHOLI SUGARS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF FUTURA POLYESTERS LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-256] [REFERRED TO]
GRAMIN VIKAS SHIKSHAN VA KRIDA PRASARAK VS. KU YAMU NARAYANRAO BIRE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
ALISTER ANTHONY PEREIRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-199] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI GAUTAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
M SONS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS. SURESH JAGASIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
M CHUMMIAHMED VS. KELIS THABAH [LAWS(GAU)-2007-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA LAKSHMAN SEN MEMORIAL COLLEGE VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
PANMATI ALIAS PARVATI DEVI VS. D D C AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR SINGH VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA VS. SUSMA SHRIVASTAVA [LAWS(MPH)-2010-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SURAT MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHADRA VS. PANKAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-265] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH D. BANKAPUR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
Susanta Kumar Sethi VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2012-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SANJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-286] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK RAI AND ORS. VS. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
PUSPA DEVI BAGLA AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-90] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 3; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-627] [REFERRED]
G P ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHABHAI DAHYABHAI JAJADIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
FAZAL KHALIL AHEMAD SHAIKH VS. NANDKISHOR RAMNIVASJI AGRAWAL [LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NARUL HOQUE LASKAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-3-32] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)When the matter was placed for admission, the office report pointed out that the appellant in each Appeal has not surrendered and therefore in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short the 'Rules') the Criminal Appeal cannot be taken up. It is pointed out that in each case an application has been filed for staying operation of the impugned judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the 'Act') in Special Case No. 4 of 1996 during the pendency of the appeal and to suspend the sentence of the appellant and the fine.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal is under Section 10 of the Act and the learned Judge of the Special Court has suspended the substantive sentence passed against each of the accused for a period of 10 weeks from the date of judgment. For that purpose each of the accused executed fresh RR Bond. Time was granted for execution of the bond. It is case of the appellants that the Rules have no application to the present case, as there is a special provision i.e. Section 9(4) of the Act authorizing the concerned Court to regulate its procedure, adopt such procedure as it may deem fit consistent with the principles of natural justice. In exercise of that power the operation of the sentence has been suspended. It is also pointed out that in several appeals under Section 10 of the Act, this Court has directed suspension of the substantive sentence during the hearing of the appeal subject to furnishing of personal bond and had not required surrender of the accused appellant. Copies of several said orders have been placed on record.
(3.)Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') permits a Court to suspend the sentence pending the appeal and for release of the appellant on bail.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.