ORDER : A3 to A6, who have been convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.23 of 2003 by the learned XI Additional Special Judge (CBI Cases), Chennai in M.P.No.2 of 2015, seeks suspension of their sentence under section 389(1) Cr.P.C. by granting them bail. 2. In M.P.No.1 of 2015, they also seek stay of the operation of the direction of the Court to pay compensation amount out of the fine amount. 3. A1 and A2 are Indian Bank officials. A7 is an approved valuer of the Bank. A2 and A7 are no more. A1 was acquitted. A3 to A6 are closely related. 4. A3 to A4 were partners of M/s.Madura International. They have approached Indian Bank, Overseas Branch, Chennai for grant of loan for their garment export business. They have produced document of a Kerala property mentioning that it measures 120 acres and valued it at Rs.150 lakhs. A5 signed in the guarantee letter. A6 held the power deed to deal with the business on behalf of A3 and A4. Considerable amount has been sanctioned by the bank. Subsequently, it became a Non Performing Asset (NPA). The bank opened its eyes. It looked towards the property security. It turned out to be only 12 acres. By the time, the loan dues rose to Rs.1,31,41, 541/-. P.W.2 lodged complaint with CBI. Case was registered. It was investigated. Final Report alleging conspiracy as between A1 to A7, cheating and forgery was filed before the trial Court. 5. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked Ex.P.1 to 108. The accused let in defence evidence. Appreciating the entire evidence, the trial court, while acquitting A1, convicted A3 to A6 and sentenced them as under : A3 – B.R.Jayanthi - 1st appellant S.No. Conviction Sentence 1. 120(B) r/w.420, 468, 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. 420 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 3. 468 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 4. 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A4 – C.Punyavathi - 2nd appellant S.No. Conviction Sentence 1. 120(B) r/w.420, 468, 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. 4. 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A4 – C.Punyavathi - 2nd appellant S.No. Conviction Sentence 1. 120(B) r/w.420, 468, 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. 420 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 3. 468 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 4. 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A5 – Kashinath - 3rd appellant S.No. Conviction Sentence 1. 120(B) r/w.420, 468, 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. 420 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 3. 468 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 4. 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A6 – B.R.Badrinath - 4th appellant 1. 120(B) r/w.420, 468, 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. 420 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 3. 468 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. 4. 471 IPC 4 years and file of Rs.7,50,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. Total fine amount is Rs.30,00,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Out of that Rs.1,13,75,000/- is directed to be paid as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. to the Indian Bank, Overseas Branch, Chennai. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, would contend that the report of P.W.3 based upon which the complaint has been lodged has not been produced. P.W.8 is not competent to speak about the valuation of the property. The expert evidence of P.W.16 is not sufficient to sustain the charge of forgery. Reliance ought not have been placed on Ex.P.88 to 97 which are not legible. 8. P.W.8 is not competent to speak about the valuation of the property. The expert evidence of P.W.16 is not sufficient to sustain the charge of forgery. Reliance ought not have been placed on Ex.P.88 to 97 which are not legible. 8. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that Ramachandra Saralaya and Mohan Kumar summoned on their side, since were not produced the defence side is very much prejudiced. Property owner Venkitaraman Udupa came to the Bank branch and signed in the documents. His son alone has been examined. Further the acquittal of A1 had weakened the prosecution case. There is prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. 9. The learned Senior Counsel assailed the direction of the Trial Court to pay huge amount as compensation. He would submit that actually the loan amount is below Rs.50,00,000/-. However, huge amount has been claimed by the bank. 10. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that this case is a fit case for staying the said direction to pay the compensation amount. Further, he would submit that already Rs.12,50,000/- has been paid to the bank before conviction. Further, the bank has also filed a recovery case in O.A. 194 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. 11. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that with great difficulty they have gathered Rs.30,00,000/-, Without prejudice to their contentions, they will pay this amount. Further, the balance fine amount, namely, Rs.6,25,000/- also will be paid by the appellants. Further, either property security or bank guarantee for Rs.30,00,000/- also will be given within a reasonable time. The Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioners are aged and infirm. 12. The learned Senior Counsel cited Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., and another [2007(6) SCC 328] and G.G.Jayaraman and others Vs V.V.S.Manian and another [2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 598] and submitted that under section 357(2) Cr.P.C., this Court has got the discretion to stay the order directing payment of compensation. 13. CBI filed counter. 14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases submitted that based on ample oral and documentary evidence, the charges were established. The land owner never visited the bank. As he had passed away, his son P.W.21 has been examined. He had clearly spoken that the extent of the land is only 12 acres. P.W.8 also has been examined by the prosecution. The land owner never visited the bank. As he had passed away, his son P.W.21 has been examined. He had clearly spoken that the extent of the land is only 12 acres. P.W.8 also has been examined by the prosecution. Inspite of the hectic efforts Ramachandra Saralaya and Mohan Kumar, could not be traced. Further, their non examination is not fatal to the prosecution case. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. 15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor stressed that the trial court has not independently directed payment of compensation and it was ordered only out of the fine amount. After having obtained huge amount of loan producing property documents with unreal fact as to its extent, till today they have not paid the fine amount. They are not entitled to any indulgence. 16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act enables the trial Court to fix the fine amount taking into account the guidance provided therein. No question of it being challenged as exorbitant or harsh. 17. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, averments in the petition, affidavit and the averments in the C.B.I.'s, counter, perused the trial Court's judgment, piece of evidence pointed out by either side and also the decisions cited. 18. The off shoot of the said considerations is : 1) Whether the petitioners have made out a case for grant of appeal bail under section 389(1) Cr.P.C.? 2) Whether the direction to pay compensation ordered under section 357 Cr.P.C. is to be stayed? 19. Question No:1 [Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.] The petitioners have raised several points with reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case. Many grounds have been raised in the Memorandum of appeal. They are such that they need to be examined during the main appeal. There is no allegation that subsequent to this case, the petitioners have involved in any other offence of the ilk. There is no allegation that they have misused their liberty. There is no allegation that they have planned to flee away from justice or country. They were on bail through out the trial Court proceedings. In view of the nature of the case, volume of the work involved, pendency of cases, it will take some time to dispose of this appeal. There is no allegation that they have planned to flee away from justice or country. They were on bail through out the trial Court proceedings. In view of the nature of the case, volume of the work involved, pendency of cases, it will take some time to dispose of this appeal. In the circumstances, they have made out a prima facie case. 20. Question No.2 : [Section 357 Cr.P.C.] Section 357 Cr.P.C. empowers the courts to direct the accused to pay compensation. Noting of the following part of section 357 Cr.P.C. will be of much assistance to us : “Section 357 : Order to pay compensation – (1) when a Court imposes a sentence or fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied - (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution; (b) in the payment of any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation for any loss or injury recoverable by such person in a Civil Court; (c) ------ (d) ------ (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. [emphasis supplied by me] (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced. (4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.” 21. Section 357 Cr.P.C. contemplates two modes of ordering compensation. One is, payment of compensation out of the fine amount. (5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.” 21. Section 357 Cr.P.C. contemplates two modes of ordering compensation. One is, payment of compensation out of the fine amount. It falls under Section 357(1) (b) Cr.P.C. The other mode is when the accused has been sentenced, no fine is imposed and separately a direction has been issued to pay certain amount as compensation. It falls under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Both under section 357(1)(b) and under section 357(3), the aim of the framers of the Code is to defray the expenses of the prosecution, provide restitution for the loss/injury caused to the complainant. 22. The present case comes under section 357(1) (b) Cr.P.C. Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. is very important. Though the word 'stay' as such has not been employed in it, the phraseology is such that the framers of the Code intended to give the said relief. 23. In Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., and another [2007(6) SCC 328], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the ambit, purport and scope of Section 357 Cr.P.C. in the background of Article 21, Constitution of India guaranteeing personal liberty and also authorising taking away of liberty of the individual by following a 'procedure' established by law. In Meenaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India [ AIR 1978 SC 597 ] the said 'procedure' has been stated to be 'fair', 'reasonable' and 'just'. Thus, if the 'procedure' adopted to take away the liberty of a person is as against Meenaka Gandhi principle(supra)it will militate against Article 21, Constitution of India. In the circumstances, in Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra), the Court took the view that the relief conceived in Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. would be available to both the modes contemplated in section 357(1) and 357(3) Cr.P.C. 24. In Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) in para 55 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observedas under : “55. Unfortunately the legislature has not made any express provision in this behalf. In absence of any express provision, the question must be considered having regard to the overall object of a statute. We have noticed herein before that Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with section 374 Cr.P.C confers a right of appeal. Such a right is an absolute one. In absence of any express provision, the question must be considered having regard to the overall object of a statute. We have noticed herein before that Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with section 374 Cr.P.C confers a right of appeal. Such a right is an absolute one. In a case where a judgment of conviction has been awarded, the court can release a person on bail having regard to the nature of offence but as also the other relevant factors including its effect on society. A person upon arrest may have to retain in jail as an under trial prisoner. So would a person upon conviction. A person may also have to remain in jail, in the event he defaults in payment of fine, if he is so directed. But when a direction is issued for payment of compensation, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 357 of the Code, the application thereof should ordinarily be directed to be stayed. It will, therefore, be for the court to stay the operation of that part of the judgment whereby and where under compensation has been directed to be paid, which would necessarily mean that some conditions therefor may also be imposed. A fortiori a part of the amount of compensation may be directed to be deposited, but the same must be a reasonable amount.” 25. Paras 56, 59 and 72 of the said judgment are also relevant here. They runs as under : “56. An order may not be passed which the appellant cannot comply with resulting in him being sent to prison. The appellate court, in such cases must make an endeavour to strike a balance. Section 421 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure may take (sic be taken) recourse to, but therefor he cannot be remanded to custody. 59. While the court shall give due weight to the need of the victim, it cannot ignore the right of an accused. In a case of conflict, construction which favour the accused shall prevail. 72. We, therefore, are of the opinion: (i) in a case of this nature, sub-section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted even when the appellant was directed to pay compensation; (ii) the appellate court, however, while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms. 72. We, therefore, are of the opinion: (i) in a case of this nature, sub-section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted even when the appellant was directed to pay compensation; (ii) the appellate court, however, while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is constitutional and statutory right; (iii) the amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum; (iv) the court, while fixing such amount, must have regard to all relevant factors including the one referred in sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (v) no unreasonable amount of compensation can be directed to be paid.” 26. On analogous situation in G.G.Jayaraman and others Vs V.V.S.Manian and another [2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 598] a learned Single Judge of this Court referring to Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) directed payment of a reasonable amount to stay the trial Court's direction to pay the compensation amount to the complainant. The decision in Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra) squarely applies to this case. 27. Thus, whether the trial Court orders payment of compensation out of the fine amount or without imposing fine, independently orders payment of compensation, Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. can be invoked. But, granting of the relief should be on terms. As against the quantum of compensation, a reasonable amount should be ordered to be paid. 28. A3 to A6 each have been imposed a fine of Rs.30,00,000/-. In toto, it is Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Less Rs.1,13,75,000/- directed to be paid as compensation to the bank, the balance comes Rs.6,25,000/-. It goes to the State as fine. The appellants are ready to pay this amount. 29. Both in the trial Court and here, it has been submitted by the petitioners that the loan amount is far below Rs.50,00,000/-, however, the fine amount crossed a crore. It is pertinent to note that the Bank is not doing any charity business. It is public money. It is intended for public use. The bank has to thrive. But it cannot be a private banker. It's business is being regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. Now the accused cannot dream of an amount below Rs.50,00,000/-. 30. Each accused has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is public money. It is intended for public use. The bank has to thrive. But it cannot be a private banker. It's business is being regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. Now the accused cannot dream of an amount below Rs.50,00,000/-. 30. Each accused has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.30,00,000/-. They have already paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the complainant prior to the Criminal Court's judgment. In the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to direct each appellant to deposit 50% of their fine amount in two equal instalments. The appellants sought for 3 months time to pay the second instalment. 31. Now, Ordered as under : 1) Appeal bail granted to the petitioners. 2) Their sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended. 3) There shall be two sureties for each petitioner. 4) Each petitioner and their sureties shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 5) Out of the total fine amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, 50% of the amount namely, Rs.60,00,000/- have to be deposited in the Trial Court in two equal instalments. 6) First instalment of Rs.30,00,000/- shall be deposited in the Trial Court at the time of executing the bail bond. 7) Second instalment of Rs.30,00,000/- shall be deposited in the Trial Court within three months from today. 8) Rs.6,25,000/- towards residue fine amount shall be paid to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bail bond. 9) In default of depositing the second instalment within the due date, CBI or the complainant bank can move this Court for cancellation of their appeal bail. 10) On deposit, the Indian Bank, Overseas Branch, Chennai shall be paid the amount. 11. Petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.