Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2001) 01 SC CK 0084

Stanny Felix Pinto vs M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 15 January 2001 · Citation: (2001) 2 ACR 1807 : AIR 2001 SC 659 : (2001) AIRSCW 295 : (2001) AIRSCW 4590 : (2001) 1 ALD(Cri) 389 : (2001) 1 ALT(Cri) 159 : (2001) CriLJ 1039 : (2001) 1 JT 620 : (2001) 1 PLJR 176 : (2001) 1 RLW 148 : (2001) 1 SCALE 228 : (2001) 2 SCC 416 : (2001) 1 SC

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.P. Sethi, J · K. T. Thomas, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Crl.A. No.-000086-000086 / 2001

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

2 paragraphs · 246 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

When a person was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. It is against the said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.