High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 12 AP CK 0066

A. Sanyasi vs State

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 December 1998 · Citation: (1999) 1 ALD 213 : (1999) 1 ALD(Cri) 26 : (1999) 2 ALT 108

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vaman Rao, J
CASE NUMBER
CMP No. 6049 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 351 words
1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Shiva Kumar representing Sri B. Adinarayan Rao, Central Government Standing Counsel.

2.

This is a petition purported to have been filed u/s 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner to enable him to file an appeal before Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The learned Advocate representing Central Government has cilcd a judgment of full Bench of Kerala High Court in Mammooty and Others Vs. Food Inspector and Others, , in support of his contention that wherein an appeal filed against conviction, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentenced the provision for grant of bail under sub-section (3) of Section 389 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. However, it appears that a Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka has taken a slightly different view in D. Subbaiah v. the State of Karnataka 1992 Cri.LJ 3740 and laid down that while sub-section (3) of Section 389 cannot be invoked, under appropriate circumstances, the provision u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for grant of relief of suspending the sentence in appropriate circumstances.

3.

In this case it is stated that the petitioner has been on bail throughout during the trial and also during the appeal proceedings. It also appears from the record that the petitioner has remitted back the entire amount said to have been involved in irregularities which constituted the offence and subject matter of prosecution for which the petitioner has been convicted. Considering these circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner is said to be desirous of approaching the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the constitution, the sentence impugned by the trial Court as modified by this Court is suspended for a period of 30 days (thirty days) on the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond of a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) undertaking to appear in the trial Court whenever called upon to do so. The bond shall be executed in the presence of the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.