Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4325 MP

                               -1-




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                 Criminal Appeal No.2470/2020
   Suresh S/o Late Mohanlal Vyas v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 13.08.2021
        Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel along with
Shri Bablu Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
        Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent / State.

Heard on I.A. No.3311/2021, which is second application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant - Suresh S/o Mohanlal Vyas. Previous application of this appellant was previously rejected by a detailed order of this Court on 22.09.2020.

The appellant has been convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2020 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No.60/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 396 r/w 120-B, 395 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively. With default clause to further undergo 6 months' imprisonment under each section.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on judgments delivered in (2014) 5 SCC 568 (Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Another v/s The State of Gujrat & Others) and Criminal Appeal No.107/2016 (Rakesh Singh v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) submits that the previous order

was passed on the basis of a CDR and the said finding is not correct in view of the aforesaid judgments. Thus, remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.

The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State.

In the opinion of this Court, there is no justifiable reason to revisit the previous order dated 22.09.2020 which was recently passed. We can certainly revisit the issue on merits at the time of final hearing. If we keep on entertaining such applications that will amount to reviewing the order and there will be no end of filing such applications. Change of arguing counsel can also not be a reason for entertaining a subsequent application for suspension of sentence. It is noteworthy that while deciding an application for suspension of sentence, Court gives its brief and prima facie reasons for accepting or not accepting an application for suspension of sentence.

In this view of the matter, we find no reason to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant. The judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel are not on the point whether said order can be revisited in another application of same nature.

Resultantly, the application (I.A. No.3311/2021) fails and is hereby dismissed.

   (SUJOY PAUL)                             (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
     JUDGE                                        JUDGE

Ravi

Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.08.13 16:52:00 +05'30'