A division bench comprising Justice B N Kirpal and Justice S Rajendra Babu also admitted petitions of MUL and bank officials Pramodkumar Pritamlal Manocha, Vinayak Narayan Deosthali and Ram Narayan Popali, who along with Mehta were ordered by the special court to pay a fine of Rs 25,000 each or in default undergo a further RI term of one year.

The apex court today directed the accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the court and also to surrender their passports to CBI.

All the accused were sentenced to jail terms ranging from one year to five years under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentences will run concurrently.

The special court hadsuspended the sentence till November 2 to enable the accused to move the Supreme Court.

The judge had on September 27 convicted the accused in MUL case, but did not give its ruling on the quantum of the sentence as it wanted to hear the parties before pronouncing its verdict.

The special court had exonerated Ambuj Jain, a former MUL executive, of all the charges framed against him as he was given the benefit of the doubt.

Harshad, who was charged with misappropriating four cheques aggregating Rs 38.97 crore drawn by MUL, was sentenced under Section 403 IPC to one year RI and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 or in default undergo RI for six months.

Manocha, former deputy finance manager of MUL charged with abusing his position as public servant to allow use of MUL funds by Harshad, was sentenced to one year RI under Section 13(1)(C) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was also asked to pay Rs 10,000 fine or in default undergo six months' RI.

Besides this, he wassentenced to five years' RI and asked to pay a fine of Rs 15,000 for offence under Section 409 IPC as he delivered on January 23, 1991, 35 lakh units of Unit Trust of India (UTI) valued at Rs 4.99 crore belonging to MUL to Harshad, in total violation of orders laid down by directors.

Manocha was awarded a similar sentence for offence under Section 409 IPC for delivering to Harshad's employee a cheque drawn by MUL on Canara Bank favouring Grindlays Bank on March 13, 1991, amounting to Rs 10.11 crore.

He was also awarded a similar punishment for offence under Section 409 IPC for falsely representing to MUL that it was UCO Bank which wanted to invest Rs 10 crore for a period of five days at 21 per cent interest, thereby inducing the company to issue a cheque on May 2, 1991 for Rs 10.39 crore which was ultimately delivered to Harshad's man, Anuj Kalia.