Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Vinod Pandurang Ghorad, filed a criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur on 29.11.2014. The impugned order imposed a condition of depositing a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000 within one month while suspending the sentence of fine awarded by the trial court in Summary Criminal Case No.507/2013. The applicant was not an accused in the case but was the owner of the vehicle used for transportation. The main offenders, Pramod Pandurang Ghorad and Gajanan Ganeshrao Deokar, were sentenced to simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs.1,000 each. The applicant contended that the condition was unreasonable and beyond his means. The State argued that the condition was reasonable. The court applied the principle of proportionality in sentencing, noting that the sentence must be proportionate to the crime committed and its gravity. The court observed that the main offenders were sentenced to a fine of only Rs.1,000 each, while the applicant, who was not even an accused, was required to deposit Rs.1,00,000. The court found this condition unreasonable and disproportionate. Considering the applicant's status as a labourer and the principle of proportionality, the court modified the condition, reducing the deposit amount from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.25,000. The court directed that the applicant deposit Rs.25,000 within four weeks from the date of the order, and upon such deposit, the sentence of fine shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Sentence - Condition of Deposit of Fine - Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. - The court while suspending sentence of fine can impose condition of deposit of fine amount, but such condition must be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of offence and means of the applicant. In this case, the applicant was not an accused but owner of vehicle; main offenders sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000 each. Held that condition of deposit of Rs.1,00,000 was unreasonable and reduced to Rs.25,000 (Paras 4-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge requiring deposit of Rs.1,00,000 as fine amount while suspending sentence of fine is reasonable and proportionate.
Final Decision
The application is allowed in part. The condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur on 29.11.2014 requiring deposit of Rs.1,00,000 is modified to Rs.25,000. The applicant shall deposit Rs.25,000 within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon such deposit, the sentence of fine shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Law Points
- Principle of proportionality in sentencing
- Suspension of sentence of fine
- Condition of deposit of fine amount
- Reasonableness of condition
- Means of the applicant
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 151
Criminal Application (APL) No.836 of 2014
Mr. H.A. Biherani for the Applicant, Mr. M.M. Ekre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1/State
Vinod s/o. Pandurang Ghorad
State of Maharashtra, Pramod s/o. Pandurang Ghorad, Gajanan s/o. Ganeshrao Devkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging condition imposed while suspending sentence of fine.
Remedy Sought
Moderation of condition requiring deposit of Rs.1,00,000 as fine amount to a reasonable level.
Filing Reason
The applicant was aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur on 29.11.2014 requiring deposit of Rs.1,00,000 within one month while suspending sentence of fine.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in Summary Criminal Case No.507/2013 awarded sentence of fine; the appellate court suspended the sentence subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000.
Issues
Whether the condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000 as fine amount while suspending sentence of fine is reasonable and proportionate.
Whether the condition should be moderated considering the applicant's means and the principle of proportionality.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant's counsel: The condition is unreasonable and beyond the means of the applicant, who is a labourer; should be moderated to a reasonable level.
State's counsel: The condition is reasonable and no interference is necessary.
Ratio Decidendi
The principle of proportionality requires that the sentence be proportionate to the crime committed, its gravity, and consequences. When suspending sentence of fine, the condition of deposit must be reasonable and proportionate, considering the means of the applicant and the sentence imposed on main offenders. Here, the main offenders were fined Rs.1,000 each, while the applicant, who was not an accused, was required to deposit Rs.1,00,000, which is disproportionate and unreasonable.
Judgment Excerpts
Sentencing policy has to be implemented in accordance with its settled principles. One such principle is of principle of proportionality of the sentence.
In the instant case, the main offenders are Pramod Pandurang Ghorad and Gajanan Ganeshrao Deokar. They have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/ each. The applicant was not made an accused in the said criminal case.
The condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000/ as fine amount is certainly unreasonable and disproportionate to the liability of the main offenders.
Procedural History
The trial court in Summary Criminal Case No.507/2013 awarded sentence of fine. The applicant filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur, who on 29.11.2014 suspended the sentence of fine subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000 within one month. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 389(1), Section 482
