Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkar Kale vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.7150/2021
(Omkar Kale Vs. The State of M.P. through S.P.E.
Lokayukta)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 11 / 01 / 2022
Shri Kunal Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the 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.21219/2021, which is an application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence
passed against appellant Omkar Kale.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
16.11.2021 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act,
Bhopal (M.P.) in Spl No. 09/2010 whereby learned Special Judge found
the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468,
467, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(D) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced him for three years R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/-, three years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-, three years R.I.
with fine of Rs.2,000/-, one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and three
years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial
earlier the Trial Court suspended the jail sentence of the appellant till
15.12.2021, thereafter, this Court extended the period of suspension till
11.01.2022. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court without
appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellant for
the aforesaid offences. There are several omissions and contradictions
in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 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.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.7150/2021
(Omkar Kale Vs. The State of M.P. through S.P.E.
Lokayukta)
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 three 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 convicted and sentenced to a short term
imprisonment, the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, the
sentence should be suspended by enlarging 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.
So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the term of
imprisonment awarded, the conduct of appellant when on bail during
the trial and the fact that the trial court has already suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant and according to listing policy the hearing of
this appeal will take time,
So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the term of
imprisonment awarded, the conduct of appellant when on bail during
the trial and the fact that the trial court has already suspended the jail
sentence of the appellant 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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA.7150/2021
(Omkar Kale Vs. The State of M.P. through S.P.E.
Lokayukta)
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 like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry
of this Court on 25.04.2021 and on such further dates as may be fixed
in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe Judge
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2022.01.11
16:50:32 +05'30'
