Sumeet Suri's four-year sentence under IPC Section 409 suspended pending appeal; acquittals under Sections 420, 468, and 471 strengthen presumption of innocence.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of Sumeet Suri, who was previously convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal breach of trust. The decision came as Suri appealed against the conviction and sentence handed down by the Special Judge (PC Act) in September 2025. The suspension of the sentence will remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal.
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, J., presided over the appeal, noting that fixed-term sentences should be considered for suspension unless exceptional circumstances exist. The appellant was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5 lakh, with a portion directed as compensation to the complainant. However, due to the fixed-term nature of the sentence and the potential delay in appeal hearings, the court opted for a liberal suspension of the sentence.
The original case revolved around allegations of significant financial misconduct involving M/s Ivory Clothing Private Limited (ICPL), a company Suri managed. The prosecution accused Suri of illegally transferring approximately Rs. 3 crores from ICPL to his company, M/s Anjanne Clothing Private Limited (ACPL), using forged documents. Despite these allegations, Suri was acquitted of related charges under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, which involved cheating and forgery, due to investigative lapses.
Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate for Suri, argued that the acquittals undermined the basis for the Section 409 conviction, as the allegations of forgery and cheating were rejected by the trial court. Mr. K.K. Manan, representing the complainants, contended that the acquittals resulted from improper investigation and that an appeal against the acquittals would be filed.
The High Court's decision aligns with past Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of making appeal rights meaningful by considering sentence suspension liberally in fixed-term cases. The court highlighted the necessity of not rendering appeals infructuous due to the passage of time, as seen in previous cases like Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat and Aasif alias Pasha v. State of U.P.
Ultimately, the court found no compelling circumstances to deny the suspension of Suri's sentence, noting the appeal's likelihood of not being heard soon. Suri's release is conditional on furnishing a personal bond and maintaining contact with authorities.
The court's decision underscores the judiciary's careful balancing of legal principles and the rights of the accused, particularly in complex financial crime cases.
Bottom Line:
Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal - Fixed-term sentence should be considered liberally for suspension unless exceptional circumstances are present - Benefit of lapses in investigation enures to the appellant, not the prosecution.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 409
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389 (now Section 430 BNSS)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 468, 471
Sumeet Suri v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833942
