Vijay Lakshmi Bansal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. These are two Crl. M.B. filed under Section 389/482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant Smt Vijay Lakshmi Bansal seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

2. Vide order dated 02.02.2019, the applicant was sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 65,00,000/- for the offence under 2020:DHC:1230 section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, 6 months’ simple imprisonment. Applicant was also sentenced to seven years RI with fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offence under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months SI. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one year’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 6,25,000/-for the offence under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 12,70,000/- for the offence under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 467 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to three years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. She was further sentenced to seven years’ RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment and she was further sentenced to seven years’ is RI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, one years’ simple imprisonment. The appellant has been given the benefit of section 428 Cr PC.

3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant is 48 years old and has two children aged about 17 years and 20 years. It is further submitted that presence of applicant is necessary to look after her children as husband of applicant is also in JC since February 2019. It is further submitted that applicant’s daughter is suffering from migraine, anxiety and depression and is under treatment for the same. It is further submitted that applicant is also not able to pay the educational fee of her daughter and son since she is in jail. It is further submitted that applicant has a clean record. She has a good prima facie case and there is every likelihood of the applicant succeeding in her appeal. Applicant has strong roots in society and has lived at her present address for the last about 15-20 years. It is further submitted that Applicant’s young/growing children will also suffer serious prejudice if they are deprived of the applicant's care, custody and supervision in their grown years. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in number of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when an appellant has preferred an appeal against his conviction, suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the appellate court should bestow special concern in the matter, suspending the sentence, so as to make the right of appeal, meaningful and effective. It is lastly submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the applicant’s sentence is suspended.

4. On the other hand, Ld. SPP has opposed the present application. He has submitted that the impugned judgment is very detailed one and the entire evidence has been considered threadbare. It is further submitted that offence committed by the applicant is serious in nature. The appellant has not even deposited the fine. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of application for suspension of sentence.

5. Having perused the impugned judgment and hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for CBI, this court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant at this stage. The appellant stands convicted of the serious offence u/s 120B/420/467/468/471 read with Section 120B IPC. At this stage, it is neither prudent nor advisable to deal with the merits of the case in detail as this will not be in the interest of justice, since the parties have not made their detailed submissions on the basis of the evidence recorded before the trial court. To decide the present application, this court is required to make a prima facie assessment of the case of the appellant. Prima facie, at this stage, it does not appear that there is any patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings of the court.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that daughter of the petitioner is not keeping well and is under treatment for migraine, anxiety and depression. It is further submitted that applicant is also not able to pay the educational fee of her daughter and son. Ld. SPP has, however, submitted that out of the total sentence awarded to the applicant by the Ld. Trial court, the appellant has served sentence of about three months only at the time of filing of the present appeal. This court finds that appellant has been held guilty along with other co-accused persons, prima facie, for criminal conspiracy for committing offences of cheating and causing huge financial loss to the tune of around Rs. 82,19,137/along with interest to a Nationalised bank and wrongful gain to himself and other convicts. This court is of the view that keeping in mind the seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant for which he has been convicted, no grounds for suspension of sentence are made out at this stage.

7. In view of above discussions, I do not find any ground at this stage to allow the applications and suspend the sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. The applications for suspension of sentence are, therefore, dismissed. CRL.A. 390/2019. Let the respondent file its reply within 6 weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed within 4 weeks. List the appeal in due course.

BRIJESH SETHI, J FEBRUARY 19, 2020 AK