Anand Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1159 MP

                             1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      CRA No.6678/2021
              Anand Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P.

                      Through video conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 25/01/2022

      Shri Sanjay Gupta, Counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi, Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.33728/2021. This is an application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted for the following offences :

Conviction U/s Sentence Fine Default (in lieu of fine) 120B of IPC 2 years RI 2,000/- 3 months RI

7 of Prevention of 3 years RI 4,000/- 6 months RI Corruption Act 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) 4 years RI 4,000/- 6 months RI of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120-B of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant

was working on the post of Revenue Inspector. The application of the

complainant for demarcation was already rejected. The sanction for

prosecution has not been granted after due application of mind. The

hearing of this appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that the complainant

had moved an application for demarcation of his agricultural land and

a demand of Rs.15,000/- was made. Ultimately it was settled at

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.6678/2021 Anand Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P.

Rs.7,000/-. It is true that the complainant has not supported the

prosecution case but in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi

Administration) reported in AIR 1980 SC 873, the allegations can

also be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

So far as non-application of mind while granting sanction for

prosecution is concerned, Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption

Act provides as under:

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings."

The appellant has not undergone half of the jail sentence.

Accordingly, at present, no case is made out for suspension of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.6678/2021 Anand Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P.

sentence.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                                 (G.S. Ahluwalia)
 (alok)                                                              Judge




ALOK KUMAR
2022.01.27 16:55:29 +05'30'