enforcement of the sentence in default of payment of the fine. He submitted that, in any case, the High Court could not have granted an 1 (2018) 15 SCC 139 Criminal Appeal No. 4277 of 2024 Page 4 of 13unconditional stay of the order directing payment of a fine of Rs.95,00,000/­. He submitted that until the impugned order was passed, the respondent had only been incarcerated for about 8 months. 4. Shri Naidu, learner senior counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the entire sentence, including the sentence of fine, has been suspended by the impugned order. He submitted that the substantive sentence and the sentence in default of fine are limited period sentences. As the appeal against conviction is not likely to be heard in the near future, the High Court has rightly suspended the sentence. 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 any appeal by a convicted