Pushpendra Singh Jaadon @ Karu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3592 MP

                                                             1
                                  The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                           CRA No. 6090 of 2021
                              (PUSHPENDRA SINGH JAADON @ KARU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      Jabalpur, Dated : 14-03-2022
                              Mr. M.Shafiqullah, learned counsel for appellant.

                              Mr. J.K.Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent-CBI.

I.A.No.18459/2021 has been filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant been convicted for offence under Section 419 r/w 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI & fine of Rs.1000/-, 420 r/w 120B of IPC

and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI & fine of Rs.1000/-, 467 r/w 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI & fine of Rs.3000/-, 468 r/w 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI & fine of Rs.1000/-, 471 r/w 120B and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI & fine of Rs.3000/- and Section 3(d)(2) r/w 4 of MP Recognized Examination Act 1937 and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.

Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was the candidate, in whose place, some other person appeared in the examination. Counsel for appellant submitted that no offence under Section 467, 468 of IPC is made out against the

appellant as document which is said to be forged was not valuable security. At best, offence against the appellant may be under Section 465 & 471 of IPC. For committing offences under Section 419, 420 of IPC, appellant has been sentenced to 2 years RI and fine. It is submitted that offence under Section 3(d)(2) r/w Section 4 of MP Recognized Examination Act 1937 is punishable with imprisonment of 2 years RI. On these grounds, counsel for appellants prayed for grant of bail.

Mr. J.K.Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent- CBI opposed the application filed by appellant for suspension of sentence and it is submitted by him that admission cards and OMR mark-sheets were forged, which are valuable security, therefore, it cannot be said that offence will not fall within

Signature SAN Not definition of under Section 467 & 468 of IPC. On these grounds, he made a prayer Verified

Digitally signed by for rejection of applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the NEETI TIWARI Date: 2022.03.15 14:18:36 IST

appellants.

Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as counsel for respondent. At this stage, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant is convicted for a fixed term of sentence, OMR mark-sheet and admission card

cannot be said to be a valuable security. Appellant may be guilty of offence but not for offence under Sections 467, 468 of IPC.

Considering the same and looking to the period of sentence, application

(I.A.No.18459/2021) for suspension of sentence is allowed, subject to

depositing fine amount as per the judgment of trial Court, if not already deposited. It is hereby directed that the custodial sentence awarded to the appellant-Pushpendra Singh Jaadon @ Karu shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their appearance before the Registry on 05.09.2022 and on other dates as may be fixed in this regard till final disposal of this appeal.

C.C. as per rules.

                                                                                    (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                         JUDGE

                      nd




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
NEETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.03.15
14:18:36 IST