SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vasant Tukaram Pawar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
Crl.A.No.558 of 2005
(Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia JJ.)
15.04.2005
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Refusal by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench to accept the prayer of
the appellant for suspension of sentence and to be released on bail while
admitting the appeal filed by him, is questioned in this Appeal.
3. Factual background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
“The appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (in short the Act'). The allegation against the appellant was that he
was in possession of property worth Rs. 4,12,297/- which was disproportionate
to his known sources of income. Appellant faced trial in the Court of Special
Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 77 of 1996. After considering the available
materials on record, the trial court held that the accused-appellant was in possession
of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The conclusion was
arrived at after taking note of the pecuniary resources of the
accused-appellant. The trial court held that the extent of the disproportionate
assets amounted to Rs. 3,10,784/-. Accordingly, he was convicted for offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- with default stipulation. In confiscation proceedings certain
properties were forfeited to the State Government and these properties had been
attached during trial. Against the conviction and sentence appeals have been
filed before the Bombay High Court. Prayer for bail was made primarily on the
ground that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the alleged assets
acquired were beyond the known sources of income. It was pointed out that the
accused was on bail during trial and considering his age, (he was nearly 66
years), he ought to be released on bail. In essence, the prayer was for
suspension of the sentence and grant of bail. The High Court noted that this
was not a fit case where it would be desirable to release the appellant on bail
during pendency of the appeal and to suspend the order of the conviction and
sentence as prayed for. It was noted that the fine imposed had not been
deposited. Further, on consideration of materials on record the amount of
disproportionate assets has been worked out. However, the hearing of the appeals
was directed to be expedited.”
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed by the trail court had not been deposited at
the time the High Court considered the application. But the amount has been
deposited subsequently. This was one of the factors indicated for not accepting
the prayer for bail. The minimum sentence prescribed is one year and the
appellant has suffered custody for nearly 10 months. The trial court has not
considered the relevant aspects and has erroneously come to the conclusion that
the appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources
of income.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the
evidence has been analysed in great detail by the trial court and considering
the rampant corruption which is prevalent in the society today no leniency
should be shown to the appellant. Additionally it is pointed out that in
Special Case No. 99 of 1996 the appellant faced trial with two others and has
been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Act as well as Sections 120 and 409 of theIndian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of four years and fine for the offence relatable to Section 120(B)
IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation for the offence
punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120(B) IPC. He was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the
Act read with Section 120(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two
years with fine. Similar was the sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) read with Section 120(B) IPC. In this
background it was submitted that this is not a case where any interference is
called for.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction in the other
case was not one of the factors considered for rejecting the prayer.
7. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 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 of the Appellate Court to record reasons in
writing for order of suspension of execution of the sentence or an order of
release if the accused is in confinement. The said court can direct that he be
released on bail or on his own bond. Requirement of recording reasons in
writing clearly indicates that there was 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.
8. We find that one of the reasons which weighed with the High Court was that
fine imposed had not been deposited. Same has been subsequently deposited.
Further, the relevance of the forfeiture of the attached property has not been
considered. We, therefore, direct the High Court to re-consider the
application. While doing so, the effect and relevance of the order of
conviction and sentence passed in S.C. 99 of 1996 shall be considered. We make
it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The
High Court, in view of its order dated 15.6.2004 may explore the possibility of
disposal of the appeal by the end of 2005.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.