Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hetram @ Hetraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 CRA-6124-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-6124-2020
(HETRAM @ HETRAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Gwalior, Dated : 22-02-2021
Shri Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sangam Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
I.A. No. 4435/2021, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up,
considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 01/12/2020
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.222/2011 by which the appellant has been convicted under
Section 489 (C) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
Heard on I.A. No. 23854/2020, first application under Section 389 (1)
of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court
has wrongly convicted the appellant. Prosecution evidence laid down before
the trial Court is self contradictory. Rojnamcha Sanha i.e. Exs.D-1 and D-2
are showing different time of incident. Further, independent prosecution
witness PW-3 Gopal, who was examined before the trial Court, had not
supported the prosecution case and had turned hostile. Seizure witness
Rakesh was not examined before the trial Court. PW-9 Ashok, who is the
technical officer of Bank Note Press, Dewas, has specifically admitted that
there was discrepancy in the alleged notes sent along with seizure memo. It is
further submitted that aforesaid notes were sent for verification two times and
were returned back by PW-9, therefore, there is possibility of tampering of
notes seized. Further, the appellant is in jail since the date of judgment i.e.
01/12/2020 and present appeal is of the year 2020, therefore, looking to the
pendency of the cases before the High Court, there is no possibility of final
2 CRA-6124-2020
hearing of this matter in coming 20 years. Hence, prayed for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the suspension
application and has submitted that the appellant is in jail since only two and
half months out of the awarded jail sentence of five years. It is further
submitted that the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 489
(C) of IPC, which affects the financial condition of the country. Hence,
prayed to reject I.A. No. 23854/2020, application for suspension of jail
sentence of the appellant and grant of bail to him, looking to the short period
of custody period as well as serious nature of offence.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available
record.
Considering the evidence produced before the trial Court along with
the merits of the case as well as short custody period of the appellant, at this
stage, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 23854/2020 is hereby rejected.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
ALOK KUMAR (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
2021.02.22
16:28:46 -08'00' JUDGE
11.0.8
AKS
