The Supreme Court recently observed that directing the deposit of 50 percent of the compensation amount as a condition to suspend the sentence of conviction is unjustified [Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra].
A division bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside a condition imposed by the Bombay High Court while granting the suspension of a sentence to a man accused of bank fraud.
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 had also directed him to pay around ₹2.86 crores as compensation.
On appeal, while allowing the suspension of the sentence, the High Court had imposed a condition of depositing 50 percent of the compensation amount determined by the trial court, which was ₹1.43 crores.
The convict moved the Supreme Court against this condition imposed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court placed reliance upon the Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. case, which interpreted Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 357 deals with court orders to pay compensation in criminal cases.
“We are of the opinion that taking into account the purpose and object of Section 357, read with its enunciation in Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Mahindra Co. Ltd. [2007 (6) SCC 528], the direction of the High Court granting suspension of sentence subject to the condition of depositing 50% of compensation is not justified,” the apex court said.
Advocates Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Ishaan George, Runjhun Garg, Himanshu Vats, and Angad Pahel appeared for the appellant.
Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, and Adarsh Dubey appeared for the respondent.
