Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8205 of 2018
(ANIL PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-07-2022
Shri H.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent/SPE.
Heard on I.A. No.3014/2021, which is application under Section 389 (1)
of Cr.P.C. for grant of stay of conviction of the appellant.
The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with
default stipulation of R.I. for six months. The sentence of appellant has been
suspended vide order dated 20.11.2018.
The case of prosecution against the appellant before the trial Court was
that appellant while working as Patwari, demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the
complainant namely Ram Prasad Kushwaha for partition and preparation of
book of records. Based on the written complaint, conversation of the appellant
with the complainant demanding bribe of Rs.2,000/- was recorded in a digital
voice recorder. On the basis of which, a trap was conducted on 26.08.2014 in
presence of two independent witnesses, where the appellant accepted the
tainted amount. However, seeing the approaching trap team, he threw the
tainted money on the floor. Appellant's hands when washed with solution of
sodium carbonate, the colour of solution turned pink.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 7
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, appellant was convicted only under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced as aforestated.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely
implicated for extraneous considerations, the demand of bribe was not found
proved by the trial Court and the appellant was acquitted from the offence
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that in
absence of demand of bribe, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for
the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. He further submits that after the judgment of conviction, the
appellant's services were terminated, therefore, there is urgency for suspension
of conviction as the hearing of appeal would take a long time.
On the other hand, Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondent, relying on the decision of Supreme court in the case of K.C.
Sareen Vs. CBI Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584, submits that conviction can
be suspended only in exceptional and rare circumstances. The appellant is not
having any exceptional circumstances, hence his conviction could not be
suspended.
In the case of K.C. Sareen (supra) the Supreme Court has pointed out
that subtle distinction in the proposition for suspension of an order of
conviction on one hand and that for suspension of sentence on the other. The
Supreme Court explained and laid down as under :-
"11. The legal position, therefore, is this: though the power to
suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not
alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very
exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an appeal in
challenge of the conviction the court should not suspend the operation of
the order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects
including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is
in the light of the above legal position that we have to examine the
question as to what should be the position when a public servant is
convicted of an offence under the PC Act. 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. But suspension
of conviction of the offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of
imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different matter."
In the present case, appellant is already out of service. In case he is
ultimately acquitted, the damage if any caused to him with regard to service or
other material benefits can be compensated.
Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no exception
or rare case is made out warranting invocation of power under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. to stay the operation of impugned order of conviction during
pendency of this appeal. Consequently this application (I.A. No.3014/2021) is
dismissed.
It is open to the appellant to move an application for early hearing of the
appeal, if appellant feels that he has a reasonable good prospect of being
exonerated.
(NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE
gn
SMT. GEETHA NAIR
2022.07.07 10:08:33 +05'30'
