The Supreme Court has suspended the seven-year jail term of a man convicted of counterfeiting currency, saying it was “thoroughly disappointed” with the Madhya Pradesh High Court for rejecting his plea for suspension of sentence without recording reasons and for failing to follow settled principles of law.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan recently lamented that the high court’s January 29, 2025 order neither reflected what weighed with the court nor applied binding precedents governing suspension of sentence in cases involving fixed-term imprisonment.
“We are thoroughly disappointed with the impugned order passed by the High Court,” the bench said. “First, the impugned order could be said to be a non-speaking order. The plain reading of any order should reflect what exactly weighed with the court in passing such order. Secondly, the High Court has failed to apply the settled principles of law while considering the plea for suspension of the substantive order of sentence of a fixed term passed by the trial court.”
The appellant, Sukhchain, was tried before a sessions court in Jabalpur for offences under Sections 489A and 489D of the Indian Penal Code, relating to counterfeiting currency and possession of forged currency notes. In September 2024, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, along with a fine of ₹100 on each count.
Challenging his conviction, Sukhchain filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which admitted the appeal. Pending its final disposal, he moved an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and release on bail. The high court, however, rejected the plea in January 2025, holding that the appellant had failed to demonstrate “clear ambiguity or lapses” in the trial court judgment and that no case for suspension of sentence was made out.
Setting aside the high court’s order, the Supreme Court underscored that appellate courts are required to apply a liberal approach while considering suspension of sentence where the conviction is for a fixed-term sentence, as opposed to life imprisonment.
“There are two types of sentences that the trial court can impose depending on the nature of the offence. Some orders of sentence are for a fixed term, unlike the order of sentence of life imprisonment. The case in hand is one of a fixed term of sentence. The maximum punishment that has been imposed is seven years,” it held.
Referring to the landmark 1999 judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs State of Gujarat, the court reiterated that where a convicted person has been sentenced to a fixed period of imprisonment and has filed an appeal as a matter of statutory right, suspension of sentence should ordinarily be considered liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The bench observed that the high court’s order did not even advert to this settled position of law.
The apex court also faulted the high court for passing what it described as a “non-speaking order”, despite the appellant having raised several grounds questioning the prosecution case, including alleged inconsistencies in recovery of currency notes, non-examination of forensic evidence, and the credibility of seizure proceedings.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the conviction, the top court said the high court was nevertheless required to indicate why the case did not merit suspension of sentence, particularly when the appeal itself had been admitted. “The plain reading of any order should reflect what exactly weighed with the court,” the bench emphasised.
Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the impugned high court orders and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose.