Punjab-Haryana High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-Sb Of 2012 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 10 July, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No.3492 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012
Date of decision:-10.07.2012
Parvesh Khush
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
2. Criminal Misc. No.33016 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No. S-1887-SB of 2012
S.K. Goel
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
3. Criminal Misc. No.35272 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No. S-1899-SB of 2012
Ashok Goel
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012 -2-
4. Criminal Misc. No.35617 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No. S-1907-SB of 2012
Surinder Kumar Kapoor
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
5. Criminal Misc. No.35622 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No. S-1908-SB of 2012
Smt. Shashi Kapoor
...Applicant-appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
(in Criminal Appeal No.S-1882-SB of 2012).
Mr.A.S. Sullar, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
(in Criminal Appeal No.1887-SB of 2012).
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
(in Criminal Appeal No.S-1899-SB of 2012).
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants
(in Criminal Appeal No.S-1907-SB of 2012
and in Criminal Appeal No.S-1908-SB of 2012).
Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012 -3-
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral)
Since Criminal Appeal Nos. 1882-SB, 1887-SB, 1899-SB, 1907-SB and 1908-SB of 2012, have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, therefore, all the five appeals are ordered to be heard and decided together.
In all the above said appeals, the applicants have prayed for suspension of their sentences during pendency of the appeals.
All the applicant-appellants were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471, IPC and were awarded sentences of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- each; rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each; rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- each respectively. The applicant-appellants S.K. Goel, Ashok Goel and Parvesh Khush were also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 477-A, IPC, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each for each offence. S.K. Kapoor, Shashi Kapoor and Ashok Goel were further held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 468, IPC and were awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months besides payment of fine of Rs.500/- each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that vide order (Annexure P-1) dated 26.5.2012 learned Special Judge (CBI), Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012 -4- Haryana at Panchkula, suspended the sentences of the applicants- appellants to enable them to file the present appeals up to 27.6.2012. They further submit that all the applicant-appellants filed their respective appeals within the time frame, granted by learned trial court. They further submit that while admitting the appeals this Court had extended the interim bail, granted by learned trial court. They further submit that the appeals are not likely to be heard in near future and the very purpose of filing the applications for suspension of sentences would be frustrated if the sentences of the applicants are not suspended. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth Jain v. State (NCT) of Delhi through Commissioner of Police 2009(2) RCR (Criminal)
764. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant-appellants.
Heard.
The applicant-appellants have been ordered to undergo various terms of sentences but all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Therefore, the maximum sentence of imprisonment would be of one year. The substantive sentence has already been suspended by the learned trial court. The applicant-appellants were on bail during the pendency of the trial but the said concession was Criminal Appeal No. S-1882-SB of 2012 -5- not misused by anyone of them. The appeals are not likely to be heard in near future. The very purpose of filing these appeals would be frustrated if the substantive sentences of the applicants are not suspended. In Siddharth Jain's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :-
"3. It is a settled law that where the sentence is less or up to three years, the Courts should ordinarily grant bail to the accused because in view of the long pendency of the cases in the High Courts, a matter will come on Board after a long time and by that time the accused might have completed his sentence."
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentences awarded to the applicants- appellants are ordered to remain suspended during the pendency of the appeals subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (CBI) Haryana at Panchkula.
The cri minal miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
July 10, 2012 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE