Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1091 of 2022
(RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 25-03-2022
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned
counsel for the appellant.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned 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.
Als o heard on I.A.No.1729/2022, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against
appellant Rajendra Kumar Dubey.
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of conviction 24.01.2022 passed by Special Judge / Prevention of
Corruption Act, Hoshangabad in Special Case LOK No.01/16, whereby learned
Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections
7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for four years each with fine of Rs.15,000/- each with default clause.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court without
appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellant for the
aforesaid offences. From the prosecution evidence demand of bribe is not proved.
Even the acceptance of bribe is also not proved. There are several omissions and
contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellant is in custody
since the date of judgment i.e. 24.01.2022. 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.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
This Court has considered the respective submissions made by the parties
and perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. The maximum
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.03.25 16:29:07 IST
sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only four 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.
S o , 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 appellant is in custody since 24.01.2022 and according to listing policy
the hearing of this appeal is likely to take a long 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 on 22.08.2022 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. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.03.25 16:29:07 IST JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.03.25 16:29:07 IST
