Vijay Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6716 MP

                                                                         1                                 CRA-4776-2021
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         CRA-4776-2021
                                                      (VIJAY KUMAR PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                      4
                                      Jabalpur, Dated : 23-10-2021
                                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                            Shri Abhishek Patel, son of appellant No.1 and Smt. Mohwati Maravi,
                                      wife of the appellant No.2 are present in person.
                                            Counsel for the appellants is not present.
                                            Shri Satyam Agrawal, Standing counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta.

In absence of learned counsel for the appellants, the matter is considered on the basis of record and the averments made by the appellants in I.A.No.14807/2021, an application for suspension of sentence.

Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A.No.14807/2021, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellants Vijay Kumar Patel and Indralal.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.08.2021 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Dindori in SC

LOK No.6/2015 whereby learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause.

Appellants in the appeal memo and I.A.No.14807/2021, an application for suspension of sentence averred that learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. From the prosecution evidence demand of bribe is not proved. Even the acceptance of bribe is also not proved. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellants are in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 07.08.2021. Hence, Signature Not Verified SAN prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.10.23 17:25:00 IST 2 CRA-4776-2021 since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

This Court has perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only four years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat, ( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment, the normal

rule is that when his appeal is pending, the sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. Apex Court in the case of C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584 held that no doubt when the appellate Court admits the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the superior court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof would render the very appeal otiose unless such appeal could be heard soon after the filing of the appeal. Apex Court in the case of N. Ramamurthy Vs. State of Central Bureau Of Investigation, A.C.B., Bengaluru, 2019 Cri.L.J. 2929 also held that in cases where an appeal could not be heard soon after the filing of the appeal, the superior Court should normally suspend the sentence of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal.

So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the term of imprisonment awarded, the conduct of appellants when on bail during the trial and the fact that appellants are in custody since 07.08.2021 and according to listing policy the hearing of this appeal will take time, the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/12/2021 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.10.23 17:25:00 IST
                                                                          3                          CRA-4776-2021

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

(ra)

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.10.23 17:25:00 IST