Ramsewak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9310 MP

1                           Cr.A.No.7839/2021
                  (Ramsewak and others Vs. State of M.P.)

Indore : Dated 11.7.2022
        Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant No.6-
Manoharlal.
        Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.6948/2022, which is an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of appellants No.6 namely; Manoharlal.

Appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) , Barwani, District Barwani vide judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in Special Case No.LOK/1/2012 and sentenced them as under:-

Section Act Punishment Fine Default Stipulation Section Act Punishment Fine Default stipulation 13(2) PC 4 Years R.I. 2,000/- 6 months additional RI 15 PC 2 Years R.I. 1,000/- 3 months additional RI 467 IPC 7 Years R.I. 5,000/- 1 year additional RI 468 IPC 4 Years R.I. 2,000/- 6 months additional RI 471 IPC 4 Years R.I. 2,000/- 6 months additional RI 420 IPC 4 Years R.I. 2,000/- 6 months additional RI 409 IPC 4 Years R.I. 6,000/- 6 months additional RI 409 r/w 511 IPC 2 Years R.I. 3,000/- 3 months additional RI

Prosecution story in brief is that, since 15.05.1996 to 03.04.1997, appellant being CEO of in Narmada Valley Development Authority No.11 in connivance with other co-accused persons without

(Ramsewak and others Vs. State of M.P.)

having done any civil work prepared, verified and submitted forged muster roll and withdrawn an amount of Rs.11,91,928/- and misappropriated the same. He also attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,53,434/-.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that there are several material omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts. Matter relates to the year 1996-1997. The appellant is senior citizen aged about 59 years or above. Co-accused i.e. appellants and 4 and 8 namely C.D. Binwal and Swamiprasad have already been given the benefit of suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2022. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. Appellant is in custody since 09.12.2021. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for suspension of remaining jail sentence supporting the impugned judgment.

Having considered the rival submissions and the fact that incident occurred in the year 1996-1997 and all the aforementioned appellant is old aged person and there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

(Ramsewak and others Vs. State of M.P.)

Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter I.A.No.2276/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of appellant No.6 namely; Manoharlal shall remain suspended.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant No.6 namely; Manoharlal shall be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.8.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A is allowed.

List the case in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

Patil

Digitally signed by SHAILESH PATIL Date: 2022.07.13 11:09:03 +05'30'