Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Deval vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 476 of 2022
(VINOD KUMAR DEVAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-03-2022
Shri Hemant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Standing counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta.
Record has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.663/2022, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against
appellant Vinod Kumar Deval.
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act, Bhopal in SPL ST Lok No.50/2015, whereby learned Special
Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
467, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- for each offence with default clause.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the offence. I t is further submitted that there is no
evidence on record to show that appellant prepared any forged document or took
any benefit from the auction. The learned trial Court without appreciating these
facts, wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. 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.
This Court has considered the respective submissions made by the parties
Signature Not Verified
SAN and perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. The maximum
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.03.10 17:29:47 IST sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only 3 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 "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, the
application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone
passed against the appellant 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
o n 16.06.2022 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. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
SAN (ra)
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2022.03.10 17:29:47 IST
