STANNY FELIX PINTOversusMIS. JANGID BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2001 INSC 28
- Decided
- 15 January 2001
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K T THOMASR P SETHI
Holding
The High Court's direction to remit part of the fine as a condition for suspension of the sentence is lawful, reasonable, and not unjust.
Summary
The appellant, St. Anny Felix Pinto, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine of twenty lakh rupees. He appealed to the High Court of Bombay for suspension of the sentence, which the High Court granted on the condition that a portion of the fine, four lakh rupees, be remitted within a reasonable time. The appellant challenged this condition by filing a petition, arguing that the amount was excessive and the direction was unjust. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's condition was reasonable and in the interest of justice. It held that imposing a condition to remit part of a heavy fine is permissible and not unconscionable, especially to ensure compliance while the sentence is suspended. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court's order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's condition that a portion of the fine be remitted within a reasonable time, as a prerequisite for suspending the sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is lawful and just.
- Whether the condition imposed amounts to an unjust or excessive burden on the convicted person.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A ST ANNY FELIX PINTO
v.
MIS. JANGID BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ~
JANUARY 15, 2001
B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Section I 38.
Conviction under Section 138-lmposition of Sentence of imprisonment
c and fine-Suspension of sentence by High Court-While granting suspension
of sentence Court directed that part of fine shall be remitted in Court within
a reasonable time-Petition against said direction-Held direction given
was advisable and in .the interest of justice-Held direction was not unjust-
Held impugned order calls for no interference.
D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
86 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2000 in CRL. RA 238/2000 of
the High Court of Bombay.
E Shivaj i M. Jadhav for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F 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 tre said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view
G 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
H 390
STANNY FELIX PINTO v. MIS. JANGlD BUlLDERS PVT. LTD. 391
of the appeal. In this case the· grievance of the appellant is that he is required A·
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 B
respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.