Allahabad High Court
Panna Lal vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116370
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5428 of 2023
Appellant :- Panna Lal
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Raghuvansh Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(Order on memo of appeal)
Heard Mr.Raghuvansh Misra, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Admit.
Summon the lower Court record.
(Order on the application for suspension of sentence)
Heard Mr.Raghuvansh Misra, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C.Act), Court No.2, Varanasi, in Special Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2003(State vs. Panna Lal) arising out of Case Crime No.240 of 2001 under Sections 7 & 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sadat, District Ghazipur, applicant-appellant has preferred aforementioned criminal appeal.
By means of above noted judgment and order, applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 7 P.C.Act and consequently sentenced to 3 years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default, applicant-appellant is to undergo 30 days additional imprisonment. Under Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act with 3 years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default applicant-appellant is to undergo 30 days additional imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order further records that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Records shows that applicant-appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial. He however surrendered before Court below on 25.04.2023 but was taken into custody. However, in view of the period of sentence awarded by Court below, applicant-appellant has been enlarged on interim bail by Court below itself vide order dated 25.04.2023. In view of above, applicant-appellant has filed aforementioned application seeking suspension of sentence/bail during the pendency of appeal.
Learned counsel for applicant-appellant contends that applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of P.C.Act and Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. The maximum sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant is 3 years. Applicant-appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial. In view of the period of sentence awarded by Court below, applicant-appellant has been extended the benefit of interim bail by Court below itself. It is next contended that there are no chances of the appeal being heard in near future on account of heavy pendency of appeals before this Court. According to the learned counsel for applicant-appellant the findings recorded by Court below with regard to the commission of an offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act is patently erroneous inasmuch as the demand alleged to have been raised by the applicant-appellant was not established. In the absence of demand having been established, the acid test which is required to be satisfied for an offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act i.e."Demand and Acceptance" as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 (paragraph 68) is not satisfied in the present case. He, therefore, submits that the findings returned by court below in respect of an offence under Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) are not only illegal but also perverse and erroneous. As a result, the appeal itself is liable to be allowed. Even otherwise, applicant-appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. It is thus urged that the interim bail granted to appellant by Court below is liable to be made absolute.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant-appellant is a convicted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Interest of justice shall be served in case the appeal itself is heard on merits by fixing a short date instead of deciding the bail matter. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused-applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to applicant-appellant is 3 years, there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future on account of heavy pendency of appeals before this Court, the applicant-appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, in view of the period of sentence awarded by Court below, interim bail has already been extended in favour of applicant-appellant by Court below, the legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant-appellant but without making any comment on the merits of the appeal, the interim bail granted to the applicant-appellant is liable to be made absolute. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to applicant-appellant is made absolute.
However, it is provided that the amount of fine awarded by court below shall be deposited by applicant-appellant with the court below within a period of one month from today failing which the bail granted to applicant-appellant shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody at once to serve out the same.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
Imtiyaz
