Hriday Shah
A Supreme Court division bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, overturned a condition set by the Bombay High Court and suspended the sentence of an individual accused in a bank fraud case.
The trial court had sentenced the appellant-accused to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 409 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ordered him to pay approximately ₹2.86 crores in compensation.
On appeal, while granting suspension of the sentence, the High Court imposed a condition that required the accused to deposit 50% of the compensation amount determined by the trial court, which amounted to ₹1.43 crores. The convict then approached the Supreme Court to challenge this condition imposed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court relied on the Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. [2007 (6) SCC 528], which interpreted Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 357 pertains to court orders to pay compensation in criminal cases.
The apex court stated that considering the purpose and object of Section 357, along with its interpretation in the Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. case, the High Court’s decision to grant suspension of sentence on the condition of depositing 50% of the compensation is not justified.
Case: Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra
Diary No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2858 of 2024
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimhaand and Justice Pankaj Mithal