- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 307 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. S.M.KAMAL PASHA, S/O LATE SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF GOLDEN HATCHERIES, OFF/AT NO. 3, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, BEHIND TANK BUND MILLERS ROAD, NEAR CONGRESS COMMITTEE OFFICE, BENGALURU – 560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT CELL, SOUTH ZONE, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT, M.G.COMPLEX, APMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY: SRI. B.M.PHALAKSHA, S/O LATE MALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, THE JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT CELL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONDITION NO.C PASSED IN INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 BY HON’BLE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-70) IN CRL.A.NO.1977/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the concerned Court in Criminal Appeal No.1977/2025. 2. Heard Zameer Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Swaroop T, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner is a poultry farmer and purchases maize from traders to feed his birds. He is said to be an end user and not a trader. Despite this fact, the respondent initiates - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 proceedings without competence and sanction, is the averment in the petition. The concerned Court convicts the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 65 and 66 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 ('the Act', for short). 3.2. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the order of conviction. The petitioner/appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2025 before the First Appellate Court or before the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal No.1977/2025. The Appellate Court while suspending the sentence directs payment of 50% of deposit of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court within 30 days from the date of the said order, which would be from 19.12.2025. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order is at the doors of this Court seeking its quashment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the concerned Court has no power to impose the said condition of deposit of 50% of the fine amount to the APMC while suspending the sentence. He would contend that the Appellate Court will have to answer the appeal on its merit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 There is no statutory backing for a direction to the Appellate Court to direct 50% of deposit and making it a condition precedent to the suspension of sentence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.T.Swaroop would refute the submissions in contending that the Appellate Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., while entertaining the appeal, has all power to impose conditions as it deems fit and therefore, the order imposing the said condition does not warrant any interference, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass. As observed hereinabove, the issue does not relate to the merit of the appeal. A skeletal backdrop is necessary to be noticed to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be a poultry farmer as transactions with the APMC for purchase of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 several products that the farmers would get into the market, the petitioner does not make payment and makes himself open to proceedings for offences punishable under the Act. The concerned Court convicts the petitioner holding him guilty of the offence. The order of conviction is as follows: "ORDER The accused No.2 is CONVICTED U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 117, 114 and 117A of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. For Hearing whether to apply probation of offenders Act or to pass sentence. Sd/- 20/11/2015 VI ACJM" The concerned Court sentences the petitioner to undergo imprisonment in the event that he would not fulfil the fine. The order of sentence is as follows: "ORDER The accused to no.2 is sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, the accused no.2 shall undergo simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable U/s 117 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. The accused no.2 is liable to pay market fees along with penalty three times the amount of market fees and therefore the accused no.2 is liable to pay - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 Rs.12,51,993/- (Rs. Twelve Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Three Only) market fees along with penalty of Rs.37,55,979/- (Rs. Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) in total Rs.50,07972/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two Only) to the complainant for the offence punishable U/s 114 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. The accused no.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine, the accused no.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable U/s 117A of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. Supply a free copy of the Judgment to the accused no.2." The total fine amount that is imposed upon the petitioner is Rs.50,07,972/-. The petitioner prefers an appeal. The Appellate Court suspends the sentence by the following order: "ORDER The Interlocutory Application No.1 filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed, subject to the following conditions: a) The operation of the impugned judgment and sentence dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C. No.41898/2010, is hereby stayed pending disposal of the appeal. b) The appellant shall execute a personal bond with one surety for a sum of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the trial court. c) The appellant shall deposit 50% of the fine amount, as imposed by the trial court, before the trial court within 30 days from the date of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 d) On compliance of the above conditions and upon payment of PF, issue notice to the respondent. e) Failure to comply with any of the above conditions shall entail automatic vacation of the order of stay." It is this that the petitioner is aggrieved of. The reason for him to be aggrieved is clause (c), which directs 50% of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court to be deposited within 30 days from the date of the order. The Appellate Court misconstrues the appeal as an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has imposed the said fine. The concerned Court could not have while suspending the sentence, direct payment of about Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner as a condition precedent to suspend the sentence. The order on the face of it is illegal. The Apex Court, in a similar circumstance, in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. ASHOK SIRPAL1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 5. Section 389 of the CrPC reads thus: “389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.— (1) Pending 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3036 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond: Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release: Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail. (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall, — (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under sub-section (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended. (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 The power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC (Corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is vested in the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal against the order of conviction. On a plain reading of sub-section (1), the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the execution of a sentence or order appealed against. If the appellant/accused is in confinement, there is a power vesting in the Appellate Court to release him on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal. In case of offences covered by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 389, there is a mandate to give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause in writing against such release before releasing a convicted person on bail. As stated earlier, the substantive sentence imposed on the respondent is rigorous imprisonment for seven years. In addition, there is a direction to pay a fine of Rs. 95,00,000/-. There are five kinds of punishment provided in Section 53 in Chapter III of the IPC, which reads thus: “53. “Punishments”.—The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are— First—Death; Secondly—Imprisonment for life; Thirdly— [* * *]; Fourthly—Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:— (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly—Forfeiture of property; Sixthly—Fine.” Section 64, which is a part of the same chapter III, reads thus: “64. Sentence of imprisonment for non- payment of fine- In every case, of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, It shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.” (emphasis added) Sections 4 and 8(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are the corresponding Sections. Section 64 of IPC uses the expression ‘offender is sentenced to a fine’. Moreover, the fine is one of the five punishments provided in Section 53. Thus, it is evident that the direction to pay a fine issued against the convicted accused is also a sentence. Under Section 64, the Court is empowered to direct that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a specific term as directed therein. Therefore, there can be a sentence of fine and a further sentence in default of compliance with the sentence of fine. …. …. …. 8. While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions. Whether the order of suspension of the sentence of fine should be conditional or unconditional depends on the facts of each case and especially the nature of the offence. For example, when there is a sentence of fine imposed while convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, depending upon the facts of the case, the Appellate Court may impose a condition of depositing the fine amount or part thereof while suspending the sentence. However, the approach of the Court may be different in case of offences punishable under the IPC and cognate legislations. Whenever a prayer is for suspension of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 sentence of fine, the Appellate Court must consider whether the sentence of fine can be suspended unconditionally or subject to conditions. However, the Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of the deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it. Such a condition may amount to defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the condition so imposed by the Appellate Court defeats the petitioner's right of appeal, in the peculiar facts obtaining in the case at hand. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] Condition No.C passed in interim order dated 19.12.2025 by Hon’ble LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-70) in Crl.A.No.1977/2025 stands quashed qua the petitioner. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9297 CRL.P No. 307 of 2026 [III] All the other conditions imposed stands sustained. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69