Abdul Hafiz Ansari vs State Of M.P

Heard on I.A. No.10567/2019, an application u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.

This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 17.9.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with a sentence of 4 years RI and fine of Rs.40.00 Lakhs.

The appellant had applied u/s. 389 of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence as well as the fine amount. Vide order dated 3.10.2018, this Court has only suspended the jail sentence and directed to release the appellant subject to deposit the amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the appellant has deposited Rs.10.00 Lakhs and furnished the surety and got released himself from the custody. Since the appellant has not deposited entire fine amount, therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has initiated the proceedings for recovery of the fine amount.

The appellant filed an application before the Special Judge seeking stay of recovery proceedings in the light of order dated 3.10.2018. Vide order dated 15.11.2019, learned Special Judge has rejected the application, hence the appellant has filed the present application u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking stay of the recovery proceedings.

Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that vide order dated 3.10.2018, this Court while suspending the sentence has directed the appellant to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs out of the fine amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs which the appellant has deposited, therefore, learned Special Judge has wrongly initiated the proceedings for recovery of the fine amount, which are liable to be stayed. He further submits that the appellant is out of employment since 2018, therefore, he is not financially capable to deposit the entire fine amount.

On the other hand, Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent/SPE Lokayukta, submits that vide order dated 3.10.2018, this Court has only suspended the jail sentence alone and directed to be released subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs. This Court has not suspended the entire fine amount, therefore, learned Special Judge has rightly initiated the proceedings for recovery of the remaining fine amount.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused order dated 3.10.2018. The operative part of the order dated 3.10.2018 is reproduced below :

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this appeal is likely to take time for final hearing, the application is allowed and the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to his depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees ten lacs) and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.02.2019 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal."

From the aforesaid order, it is palpable that this Court has allowed the application in part by suspending the jail sentence alone and directed for release of the appellant from custody on bail subject by depositing Rs.10.00 Lakhs. There is no specific direction or order for staying the deposit of the entire fine amount. A relaxation, for the time being, was given by this court so that may come out from the jail after depositing Rs.10.00 Lakhs out of fine amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs. After release from the custody, the appellant out to have deposited the remaining amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs because the entire fine amount has not been stayed by this Court. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Special Judge has not committed any error while initiating the recovery proceedings of the fine amount. It is made clear that out of Rs.40.00 Lakhs, the liberty was given to the appellant to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs and that does not mean that this Court has suspended/stayed the entire fine amount. The appellant is liable to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs before the Special Judge.

In view of the above, I.A. No.10567/2019 stands rejected.

List for final hearing in due course.