Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Palwe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 7269 of 2021
(VIVEK PALWE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-02-2022
Shri Som Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent/SPE
Lokayukta.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.21467/2021, which is an application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed
against appellant Vivek Palwe.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29/11/2021
passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Jabalpur (M.P.) in
SC LOK No.8/2017 whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty
for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 4
years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default clause.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court without
appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellant for the
aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that the appellant joined his service
on 21/6/1993 and the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty only on the
basis that property valuing to Rs.67,46,536/- was disproportionate to his
income. Learned trial Court wrongly valued the property. In this regard, there
are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. Appellant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e.
29/11/2021. Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of
the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer
and submitted that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellant.
This Court has considered the respective submissions made by the
parties and 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment, the normal rule is that
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
when his appeal is pending, the sentence should be suspended by enlarging
Date: 2022.02.14 17:30:23 IST
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.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and the short sentence awarded by the trial
Court and the fact that the appellant is in custody since 29/11/2021 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 appellant shall remain suspended during the
pendency of this appeal 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 26/4/2022 and on such further dates as may be
fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2022.02.14 17:30:23 IST
