Usha Jyoti Safer v. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

Judgment

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07-04-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for suspension of fine amount has been rejected by the learned appellate court.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an accused in Criminal Case No. 857 of 2016, decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir Champa, by it's judgment dated 23-06-2023, for the offence under sections 420 of IPC and section 4, 5 A, B and C of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and convicted for the said offences and sentenced for RI for three years, three years and two years respectively with fine of Rs. Two Lakhs, Five Thousand and Three Thousand respectively, AADIL KHAN with default stipulations. 2

3. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23-06-2023 before the learned Sessions Judge Janjgir Champa in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023. The criminal appeal was filed on 12-07-2023 however, during the pendency of the appeal, initially she had not obtained any order for suspension of sentence and also had not deposited the fine amount before the learned trial court. Thereafter, on 13-05-2024, the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the Learned appellate court. The said warrant of arrest could not be executed and she surrendered on 07-04-2025 before the Learned appellate court, and the sentence awarded to her is suspended by the Learned appellate court, however, she had not deposited the amount of fine.

4. On 07-04-2024, she filed an application before the learned appellate court, under section 424 of Cr.P.C. for permission to deposit the amount of fine in installments. She had submitted that she is an unemployed lady and could not able to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,08,000/- at once, and therefore she may be given the benefit to deposit the amount of fine in installments. After hearing the parties, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned appellate court on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner under section 424 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. This said part of the order dated 07-04-2024 is under challenge in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed by the petitioner before the learned appellate court has been rejected on the ground that the application under section 424 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable as the same was applicable when the accused was sentenced with fine amount only and where the accused has been convicted for sentence of imprisonment and fine both, the said provision is not applicable and therefore her application for permission to deposit the amount of fine in installments has been rejected. He would further submit that merely coding the wrong 3 provision does not debar the petitioner to claim the facility of depositing the amount in installments. She being an unemployed lady, not able to deposit the entire amount of the fine at once. She is ready to deposit the fine amount in installments and the application may be allowed and grant her benefit to deposit the amount in installments. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 551, Dilip S. Dahankur Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 528 and Om Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the state opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial court by the judgment dated 23-06- 2023 but she has not deposited the fine amount till 07-04-2025 and, therefore no bona fide is shown by her in her application. The matter relates to the offence of cheating and collecting money under the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Therefore it cannot be said that she is incapable of deposit the fine amount and rejection of the application by the learned appellate court is justified and needs no interference.

7. I have heard Leonard counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

8. In the present case, the petitioner is sentenced with imprisonment and find both. The imprisonment part of her sentence is suspended by the Learned appellate court by its order dated 07-04-2025, but the fine amount part of her sentence has not been suspended and her application for permission to deposit the fine amount in installments has been rejected. The provisions relating to the recovery of the fine amount are given in section 421 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under- 4 “421. Warrant for levy of fine:-

1. When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may - (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender; (b)issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter : Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.”

9. Section 389 Cr.P.C. provided the suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. While suspending the sentence, the appellate court can impose conditions including the conditions with respect to deposit of the fine amount. They may impose a condition of depositing the final amount or part thereof while 5 suspending the sentence. The appellate court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to condition. The condition should not be such that the appellant can't comply with it.

10. In the matter of “Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3036, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 of its judgment that:- “8. While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions. Whether the order of suspension of the sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional depends on the facts of each case and especially the nature of the offence. For example, when there is a sentence of fine imposed while convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, depending upon the facts of the case, the Appellate Court may impose a condition of depositing the fine amount or part thereof while suspending the sentence. However , the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under the IPC and congnate legislation. Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

11. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the provisions of section 424 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case which appears to be erroneous. Learned appellate court should have decided the application on its merits, not on the point of coding wrong provisions. The contents of the application are relevant to decide the same and not its provision.

12. Although the nature of the offence, the allegation against the present 6 petitioner and the conduct that she filed her appeal before the appellate court in the year 2023 and her conduct that she remained absconding and warrant of arrest was issued and in compliance thereof, she surrendered before the learned appellate court, but has not deposited the fine amount in between 2023 to 2025 and enjoyed liberty, makes her disentitled for relief of installments to pay the fine amount. Yet in the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion that she may be provided the benefit of installments to deposit the fine amount. Since her sentence has already been suspended by the Learned appellate court, the fine amount imposed upon her can be levied in installments in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

13. Therefore, keeping in view of the provisions of Section 389, 421, 431 of Cr.P.C., and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Sirpal case (supra), this court is of the opinion that giving the benefit to deposit the amount of fine of Rs. 2,08,000/- in six equal installments, which is payable up to 10th day of every English calendar month without any failure, would meet the end of Justice. The petitioner is directed to deposit the first installment of Rs.58,000/- within 10 days from today and thereafter shall continue to deposit the remaining amount of fine in five equal installments, in every month up to the 10th day of that month. Failing which the Learned appellate court/trial court shall initiate the recovery proceeding of the fine amount in accordance with law.

14. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge