Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roopsingh Sisodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4894 of 2021
(ROOPSINGH SISODIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 16-02-2022
Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Raghvendra S. Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the
respondent/Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Further, heard on I.A.No. 22845/2021, which is first application under
section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed, on
behalf of the appellant - Roop Singh Sisodiya.
The present appellant has been convicted under section(s) 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/W 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer three
years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and four years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- with
three and six months additional imprisonment in case of default vide judgment
dated 11.08.2021 passed in special sessions trial No.SC LOK/300011/2016 by the
Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Mandleshwar.
Prosecution story in brief is that appellant being Patwari Halka No. 41 in
Village Nandra Tappa Distt Mandleshwar, Tehsil Maheshwar, Distt. Khargone
demanded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant
for making amendments in the agricultural passbook (rin pustika) of his father.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and
he has been falsely roped in the offence. It is submitted that prosecution has not
proved the fact that appellant was the Patwari of the area where agricultural land of
complainant's father was situated. Agricultural Land Passbook (rin pustika) has
not been seized from the exclusive possession of the appellant. Learned trial Court
in para 38 of the impugned judgment has found the memory card with regard to
recording of conversation of complainant and appellant of demand of money to be
inadmissible. Prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-5 have admitted in their
Signature Not Verified
SAN cross-examination that at the time of incident phenolphthalin powder was used at
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.02.17 11:35:30 IST the spot before the trap proceedings. During the pendency of appeal, appellant has
suffered about six months of jail sentence. The final disposal of the appeal shall
take time. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays that execution of the jail
sentence of the appellant may be suspended and enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and
submits that appellant has committed a heinous crime having demanded Rs.
1,500/- and caught red-handed for doing his official duty. Such corrupt person
should not be dealt with leniently. He further submits that although memory card of
conversation with regard to demand of money was found inadmissbile in evidence,
but found primary evidence i.e. application (Ex. P-1) filed by the complainant to be
found proved and shows that demand was made by the appellant from the
complainant. Land Passbook(Rin pustika) of complainant has been seized from
the possession of the appellant which shows that appellant took the same for
making amendment. At the time of raid, phenolphthalein was found on the hands
o f appellant and his hand and pant pocket has turned pink. Appellant has not
rebutted the presumption u/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act with regard to
acceptance of money. Prosecution has very well proved its case. Even otherwise,
appellant has suffered jail incarceration for only 06 months out of total sentence of
five years. Hence, no indulgence is warranted for release of the appellant by way of
suspension of his jail sentence.
Heard, learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
Considering the fact that memory card in which conversation with regard to
demand of money as illegal gratification was recorded has been found to be
inadmissible in evidence, land passbook(rin pustika) of agricultural field has been
seized from the office of appellant and not from his exclusive possession and also
considering the quantum of amount i.e. Rs. 1,500/- which is alleged to be
demanded and accepted by him and also that appellant neither has any criminal
antecedent nor any bad service record and hearing of this appeal is likely to take
considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for
suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Consequently, I.A., is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution of jail
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal
Date: 2022.02.17 11:35:30 IST
and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine
amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court
o n 15.03.2022, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that
regard.
List in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.02.17 11:35:30 IST
