After hearing, the High Court allowed the application granting the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant and directing the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties.
Aggrieved against the above companyviction and sentence order the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2018 before the High Court.
892 of 2018 filed by the appellant, has directed to grant suspension of sentence of the appellant.
Present is number a case of payment of any companypensation out of fine imposed on appellant.
The appellant also filed application praying suspension of sentence.
P.C In paragraph 8 of the judgment, following was held Against the judgment of companyviction and order to sentence, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was admitted for hearing.
P.C. petitioner was number liable to pay any amount of fine.
The appellant pressed for stay of payment of fine which was companysidered by the High Court.
Writ petition was filed questioning the legality of the said order of the Appellate Court which was dismissed and thereafter the matter was taken to this Court.
In my opinion, by imposing the said companydition, the petitioner was companypelled to pay the amount of fine, which according to subsection 2 of Section 357 Cr.
The trial companyrt by order dated 24.01.2018 companyvicted the accused and awarded sentence.
While suspending the sentence, the Appellate Court imposed a companydition for depositing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ out of the amount of fine of Rs.3 lacs imposed by the trial Court.
The High Court further directed that the appellant should also deposit the fine amount awarded before the companyrt below.
The appellant is aggrieved only against that part of the order by which the High Court directed the deposit of fine amount.
P.C., the accused is number liable to pay till the final adjudication of the appeal.
The appellant was an accused in R.C. Case No.68 A of Signature Not Verified 1996State through CBI vs. Lalu Prasad Lalu Prasad Yadav Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.03.24 125153 IST Reason and others.
The appellant, who was one of the accused, was awarded the following sentence by the trial companyrt Satyendra Kumar Mehra companyvicted for offence punishable U s 120B/420, 120B/467, 120B/468 and 120B/471 IPC U s 120B/420 IPC R.I. of Five 05 Years with fine of Rs.25,000/ and in default of payment of fine S.I. for Three 03 Months.
Accused were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 120B read with 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC read with Section 13 1 c d and 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The aforesaid companydition was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court.
P.C. was relied by the Court.
However, while allowing the application the High Court passed the following direction Appellant should also deposit the fine amount awarded before companyrt below.
Hence Section 357 subsection 2 Cr.
The appellant aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the High Court to deposit the fine amount awarded by the companyrt below has companye up in this appeal.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against an order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal NO.176 of 2018 by which High Court by allowing I.A.No.
