Injamamuddin @ Jamam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4299 MP

                                              1
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9861 OF 2019
    (Injamamuddin @ Jamam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)


Indore, Dated 13.08.2021
        Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
        Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
                                         ORDER

Per Shailendra Shukla, J:

Heard on IA No.16100/2021 which is an application for early hearing of the case during lockdown and IA No.5082/2021 which is an application for urgent hearing of the case.

Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in both the applications, the same stands allowed. Accordingly IA No.16100/2021 and IA No.5082/2021 stands disposed of.

Also heard on IA No.5081/2021 which is second application filed under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence filed on behalf of sole appellant Injamamuddin @ Jamam S/o Rafikuddin who has been convicted by Sessions Judge, District-Ujjain (MP) in Session Trial No.650/2015 vide judgment dated 13.11.2019 and sentenced him as under:-

                  Conviction                                Sentence
        Section & Act          Imprisonment       Fine Amount      Imprisonment
                                                                    in lieu of fine
    201 of IPC, 1860.           07 years RI        Rs.5,000/-        6 months
                                                                   additional RI
          25 (1-B) (A)          03 Years RI        Rs.5,000/-        3 months
        Arms Act, 1959.                                            additional RI

The first suspension application was rejected by this Court on 09.01.2020.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9861 OF 2019 (Injamamuddin @ Jamam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)

The main grounds putforth by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been convicted under Section 201 of IPC which is a bailable offence and in respect of other offence proved under Arms Act, he has completed more than half of his jail term.

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention to Section 389(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as per which the trial Court shall suspend the sentence if the offence is bailable in nature.

Learned public prosecutor for the State has however submitted that this Court by a detailed order passed on 09.01.2020 has rejected the earlier suspension and that the provision of Section 389(3) Cr.PC is regarding the recourse to be adopted by the trial Court and not by the appellate Court.

Considered.

There is substance in the submissions of learned public prosecutor for the State that the provision of Section 389(3) Cr.PC is not attracted when the matter is before the appellate Court.

In this matter, the firearm has been recovered from the possession of appellant on the basis of his memorandum. It has further been found proved that the empty cartridge recovered from the spot had been fired from the same firearm.

This Court had rejected the first suspension application of appellant by a detailed order dated 09.01.2020 and there appears to be no change in the circumstances and therefore no case is made out for allowing the suspension application of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9861 OF 2019 (Injamamuddin @ Jamam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)

appellant. Consequently, no case is made out for allowing the second suspension application of appellant - Injamamuddin @ Jamam. Accordingly, IA No.5081/2021 which is second application for suspension of sentence stands rejected.

Record has been received.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

            (SUJOY PAUL)                        (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
              JUDGE                                   JUDGE

Arun/-


Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2021.08.17 10:32:46
+05'30'