Proposed Appeal Against Acquittal On Other Charges Cannot Influence Consideration Of Sentence Suspension U/S 389 CrPC: Delhi High Court

The Court clarified that any such appeal, if preferred, would have to be considered independently on its own merits.

The Court was hearing an application filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking suspension of the order of sentence passed by the trial court pending appeal.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, while addressing the contention that the complainant is proposing to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant/applicant from the charges under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, observed that “in case any such appeal is preferred by the complainant, same shall be considered on its own merits and it cannot have any bearing on the plea of the appellant/applicant seeking suspension of substantive order of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C.”

Background

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (PC Act) for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with payment of fine. The trial court, however, acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code.

The prosecution case related to the alleged misappropriation of funds of a company by the appellant during his tenure as a director. While the prosecution alleged that the appellant had siphoned off funds by using forged documents and fabricated records, the trial court found that the allegations of forgery and cheating had not been proved in accordance with the law.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 409 of the Penal Code, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court and moved an application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first noted that the sentence imposed on the appellant was for a fixed term of four years. Referring to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that in cases involving fixed-term sentences, appellate courts should “consider suspension of sentence liberally”, unless there are compelling circumstances indicating that release of the convict would not be in the public interest.

The Court examined the findings recorded by the trial court and noted that while the appellant had been convicted under Section 409 of the Penal Code, the same judgment had acquitted him of charges under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. The Court observed that the trial court itself had found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of forgery of bills and fabrication of board resolutions, which formed the foundation of the prosecution's case.

Prima facie, the High Court found merit in the submission that the charge under Section 409 of the Penal Code was based on allegations of forgery and cheating, and held that “once the learned Trial Court held that the allegations of forgery and cheating have not been proved insofar as the bills of other two firms and minutes of the Board meetings are concerned, substratum for Section 409 IPC is knocked out and conviction under Section 409 IPC may not survive”.

Addressing the contention raised on behalf of the complainant that an appeal was proposed to be filed against the acquittal of the appellant under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, the Court held that any such appeal, if preferred, would be considered independently on its own merits and could not have any bearing on the appellant’s plea seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code.

The Court further observed that the acquittal of the appellant on the charges of cheating and forgery had, in fact, “strengthened the presumption of innocence in his favour”, and that lapses in investigation noted by the trial court could not be used to deny the appellant the benefit of suspension of sentence.

The Bench reiterated that at the stage of considering an application for suspension of sentence, the appellate court is not required to reappreciate the evidence or conduct a detailed examination of the merits of the conviction.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court held that there were no compelling circumstances to deny suspension of the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant and that release of the appellant would not be contrary to public interest.

Accordingly, the Court suspended the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, during the pendency of the appeal, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Cause Title: Sumeet Suri v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:89)

Appearances

Appellant: N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate, Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, with H.S. Bhullar, Ekta Chandani, Sarthak Aggarwal, Sarabjeet Kaur, Punya Rekha Angara, Aman Akhtar, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Singh Mandla, Gauri Ramachandran, Yashi Gupta, Fateh Singh Bhullar and Annanya Mehan, Advocates

Respondents: Ajay Vikram Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, with Gaurav M. Liberhan, Sumant Vyas, Uditi Bali, Karmanya Singh Chaudhary, Lavish Chandra, Yakshi Kataria, Shivani Varun, Aditi Gupta and Arun Singh Rawat, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment