Deen Dayal Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5543 MP

                                                         1                               CRA-1610-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         CRA-1610-2021
                                       (DEEN DAYAL KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                      8
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 16-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the appellant.
                            Shri Tapan Bathre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 3893/2021, which is an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail

sentence filed on behalf of appellant No.2-Deendayal Kol.

Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 409/34, 420/34 and 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.6,42,155/-, RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations respectively, vide judgment dated 12/02/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 100076/2016.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is alleged against the appellant that he being a Sarpanch alongwith other co-accused person

misappropriated and misused Panchayat fund of total Rs.12,84,310/- on account of construction of E-Panchayat building and Bansukhi Road. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has not committed any offence as he never signed any documents for withdrawal of money. Prosecution witnesses CEO-Smt. Prerna Singh (PW -2), Panchayat Co-ordinator- Ramavtar Saket (PW-3) and Sub-Engineer- Annapurna Gupta (PW-9), have admitted in their statements that construction work was being done on the spot, therefore, the whole prosecution story is doubtful. Appellant has been convicted only on the basis of surmise and conjecture. Appellant has already suffered more than half period of punishment. Appeal will take enough time for its final disposal, therefore, remaining jail sentence of

Signature Not the appellant may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail. SAN Verified

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2021.09.17 10:49:40 IST 2 CRA-1610-2021 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application and submitted that judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. He further submitted that the appellant has committed grave offence, therefore, application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant deserves to be

rejected.

Having considered rival contentions of both the parties and after perusal of the record, considering the material pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a fit case for suspension of sentence is made out in favour of appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.3893/2021 is allowed. It is directed that on deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2021 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court, the appellant be released on bail and the substantive sentence under appeal shall remain suspended.

List the matter for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                    (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                                                             JUDGE


                      vinay




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2021.09.17
10:49:40 IST