Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pavan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRR-2242-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-2242-2021
(PAVAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-10-2021
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri N.P. Varma, counsel for
the applicant.
Shri S.D. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Complainant Surendra Pamnani is present in person along with Shri
Raji Mathai, Advocate.
Heard on I.A.No.19329/2021, an application under Section 320 (6) of
CrPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have
entered into compromise out of the Court and have filed IA No.19329/2021
for disposal of the case on the basis of compromise.
Let the matter be placed before the Registrar (J-II) for verification of
the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise application filed by the
parties and submit its report.
Also, heard on I.A. No.16695/2021, which is first application under
Section 397(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the
custodial sentence passed against the applicant Pawan.
This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2021
passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Mandla, in Cr. Appeal
No.65/2018 whereby learned ASJ affirmed the judgement of conviction dated
22.08.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla in
R.C.T. No.1936/2012 whereby learned JMFC found applicant guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 420/34, 120-B & 411 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for two years
with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Court
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.10.28 16:26:30 IST
2 CRR-2242-2021
as well as appellate Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly
found the applicant guilty for the aforesaid offences. There are several
omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Even otherwise, the complainant has entered into compromise with the
applicant. The applicant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e.,
07.09.2021 and hearing of this revision will take time. Hence, prayed for
suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.
Learned counsel for the objector submitted that the objector has
entered into compromise with the applicant and if this Court grants bail to the
applicant, he has no objection.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of
the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant is in
custody since 07.09.2021 and hearing of this revision will take time, the
application is allowed and it is directed that execution of the jail sentence
alone passed against the applicant shall remain suspended during the
pendency of this revision and he be released on bail upon furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2021 and on such further dates as
may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this
revision.
Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
(ra)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.10.28 16:26:30 IST
