O P Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal filed by the applicant in FIR RC No. 4(A)/2013/AC-III/CBI/New Delhi under Sections 120- B/420/466/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

2. Vide judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi convicted the applicant under Sections 120-B/420 of the IPC and 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act and vide order on sentence dated 6th May, 2023, sentenced him to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a combined fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

3. The applicant was granted interim suspension of sentence on 26th May, 2023, till the next date of hearing i.e., 12th July, 2023, primarily taking into account the possibility of matrimonial alliance of the daughter of the applicant. However, when the matter was taken up on 12th July, 2023, the applicant did not surrender and sought regular suspension of sentence. The interim suspension granted to the applicant has continued till date.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the period of trial and has never misused the liberty granted to him.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submits that the applicant has rightly been convicted by the Trial Court and no grounds for granting suspension of sentence have been made. He states that merely because the applicant has been on bail during the trial proceedings is not sufficient to grant suspension of sentence after the applicant has been found guilty. He further submits that suspension of sentence should be granted only where the convict stands a fair chance of acquittal.

6. Learned counsel for the CBI has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions:

(i) Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638;

(ii) Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC

123;

(iii) Manoj Kumar Mishra v. CBI, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6285

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. It is a settled principle of law that the Court should not deal with the merits of the case in detail at the stage of consideration of suspension of sentence. However, a prima facie view would have to be taken by the Court while deciding the application for suspension of sentence.

9. In the present case, the applicant was a high-ranking officer, the then Director (Housing), DDA, Delhi. There is material on record to show that the applicant abused his position to launch a criminal conspiracy with other accused to cause loss to the DDA. On a prima facie view, there is evidence of money being received in the accounts of mother-in-law of the applicant and the son of the applicant from the account of the wife of the other co-convict, the appellant in Crl.A. 431/2023.

10. Further, in the application for suspension of sentence, no grounds have been made for grant of suspension of sentence, other than bald averments that the applicant has a good prima facie case. In the application for early hearing, filed on behalf of the applicant, being Crl.M.A. 14861/2023, the grounds taken by the applicant for early hearing of his application for suspension of sentence are that the applicant is a senior citizen of 68 years of age and has an unmarried daughter. It has been stated that the applicant is suffering from various ailments, however, neither the details have been provided nor any medical documents have been filed.

11. It is to be noted that as per the Nominal Roll on record, the applicant has spent only 20 days in custody after his conviction, as opposed to 3 months spent by the co-convict, the appellant in Crl.A. 411/2023.