Maheboob Amin Masuldar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 7954 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:16715



                                                  1                       46-appln-2880-2023.odt


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2880 OF 2023
                             IN APEAL/701/2023 WITH APEAL/701/2023

                                  MAHEBOOB AMIN MASULDAR
                                               VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                  ...
                            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chatterji Joydeep
                              APP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.S. Patil
                                                  ...
                                                CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
                                                 DATED : AUGUST 07, 2023


              PER COURT :-


              1.              Issue notice to the State. Learned APP waives service of

              notice for the State.

              2.              Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

              applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under

              Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and

              sentence to suffer R.I. for four years under Section 7 and R.I. for five

              years under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He

              would submit that the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe

              has not been proved beyond reasonable. During the course of trial,

              he was on bail. He referred to the impugned judgment and order

              and pointed out that the case laws relied upon by the accused on the




                ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2023                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2023 05:59:41 :::
                                         2                     46-appln-2880-2023.odt


point of acceptance and demand of bribe have also not been

properly appreciated. Hence, his sentence may be suspended.

3.              Per contra, learned APP for the State would submit that

the applicant did not rebut the presumption as provided under

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution had

established the case beyond a reasonable doubt.              The offence is

against the society.             There are no grounds for suspension of

sentence. Hence, his sentence may not be suspended.

4.              Perused the papers and impugned judgment and order.

This is a first appeal wherein the evidence may be re-appreciated.

The question that has been raised is that the acceptance of the bribe

has not been properly appreciated. The conviction of the applicant

is for a short term. Considering the ratio in the case of Kiran Kumar

Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 211 , the Court is of the view that this

is a fit case to suspend the sentence. Hence, the following order :

                                      ORDER

(i)     The application is allowed.

(ii)    The execution, implementation, effect and operation of the

impugned judgment and order of Special Judge and Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special Case No.33 of 2016 dated

02.08.2023 to suffer R.I. for four and five years respectively for the

3 46-appln-2880-2023.odt

offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, is suspended till the conclusion of trial.

(iii) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing P.B. and

S.B. of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed/-