Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atiram And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.863 OF 2010
(Atiram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 22.06.2021
Arguments heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Matter is listed for consideration on IA No.543/2021 which
is sixth repeat application filed under Section 389 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, for suspension of sentence filed on behalf
of appellant No.1 Atiram S/o Kaina Barela who has been
convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(2)(c) of
NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to twelve years of RI along with
fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants during the course of his
oral submission has made a prayer that the appellant No.1 Atiram
has completed eight years and seven months of his substantive
jail sentence and the only prayer is to reduce his jail sentence
from twelve years to ten years which is minimum prescribed
under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Considered.
It appears that in this matter, apart from the present
appellant, one another co-accused Sitaram had also been
convicted. Ordersheets show that non-bailable warrant has been
issued against accused Sitaram and even the explanation had
been sought from the concerned Superintendent of Police for not
serving non-bailable to Sitaram and vide order dated 20.06.2018,
even Rs.10,000/- cost had been imposed upon the State for not
submitting the explanation of Superintendent of Police.
Thereafter, subsequently an order was also passed on
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.863 OF 2010
(Atiram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
04.09.2018 directing the initiation of recovery proceedings
against the surety.
A perusal of ordersheets show that co-accused Sitaram
although had filed an appeal against his conviction but till now no
such application at any point of time has been filed on his behalf
for suspension of sentence. It has been orally informed by
learned counsel for the State that to his knowledge, accused
Sitaram had absconded while he was admitted in the hospital
during the period when he was in jail.
The trial Court's record shows that on the date when the
judgment was pronounced i.e. on 26.07.2010, accused Sitaram
had been produced in judicial custody. Thereafter his
whereabouts have not been known. It would be first appropriate
to call a report from the concerned Jail Superintendent as to
whether Sitaram had absconded and whether Jail Superintendent
had sent any such report to this Court.
The submission in respect of present appellant Atiram shall
be considered after receipt of such report from the concerned Jail
Superintendent.
A report be obtained from the concerned Jail
Superintendent for perusal of this Court on or before 05.07.2021.
Matter be listed on 05.07.2021 along with the report of Jail
Superintendent.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2021.06.23
11:20:33 +05'30'
