throughout the trial. Considering the pendency of the Appeals, this Appeal will not be heard in near future. Hence, the application for releasing the applicant/accused on bail is granted. The fine amount is of Rs.50,40,000/-. Under definition of Section 53 in Chapter III of the Indian Penal Code, punishment includes imprisonment and also fine. Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. confers power to the Appellate Court to suspend the sentence pending appeal. In the case of Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr . (supra) , the Supreme court has dealt with the power of suspension of sentence including fine under section 389 of Cr. P.C. wherein the accused was convicted under section 138 of N.I. Act. There is no distinction between suspension of imprisonment and suspension of fine in Section 389, it states only suspension of sentence; which undoubtedly covers both imprisonment as well as fine. No bar is placed to suspend a sentence which includes fine as well as imprisonment. Though in Section 53 while defining punishment, the word 'sentence' is not used, however, section 389 is worded as 'suspension of sentence pending Appeal'. Thus, within the purport of Section 389, the sentence i.e. punishment is to be necessarily read as sentence which includes an imprisonment and also a fine. This interpretation is supported with reference to section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, which states about sentence of imprisonment in default of non-payment of fine. Thus, non-payment of fine is to be compensated/substituted by the order of period of imprisonment.
