Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhme Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1978 of 2022
(LAKHME SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-05-2022
Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel with Shri Aniruddha Gokhale,
learned counsel for the appellant..
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A.No.4576/2022, an application filed under Section 389
of Cr.P.C for grant of suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the appellants.
The appellant No.1 has been convicted by the ASJ, Sanavad, District
Mandleshwar by order dated 15.2.2022, passed in S.T.No.9/2020, for
commission of offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC, has been
sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI, under Section 420 of IPC, has been
sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 467 of
IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, under
Section 468 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of
Rs.500/- and under Section 471 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 2 years
of RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause in lieu of fine. Appellants No.2
and 3 have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section
419/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI, under
Section 420/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI with
fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 467/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to
Signature Not Verified
SAN undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- each, with default clause in lieu of
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.12 14:34:09 IST
fine.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submit that the owner of the
land in question had executed a registered power of attorney jointly (vide
Exhibit P/1) in favour of Lakmay Singh, giving him right to sale the land.
Thereafter they made a complaint that this power of attorney is forged
document. The prosecution has examined that Sub-Registrar (PW.6) who has
categorically stated in the Court that these all complainants came to the Office
and got the power of attorney registered. Once the deed has been registered it
cannot be termed as forged documents, hence conviction under Section 471 of
IPC is bad in law under which appellant No.1 has been sentenced for 10 years.
Apart from Section 467 of IPC, the appellants have been convicted for the
period of 3-2 years. During trial they were on bail.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharraj & Anr.
Etc. passed in Criminal Appeal No.359 - 360 of 2010 dated 11.5.2018 and in
the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v/s. State of Bihar & Another,
(2009) 8 SCC 751. With the aforesaid, it is prayed that application filed on
behalf of the appellants be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the prayer for
suspension of jail sentence and prays for its rejection.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No.4576/2022 is allowed
and it is directed that on depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal
bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- by each of the appellant's with one solvent
Signature Not Verified
SAN
surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
substantive jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till the final
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.12 14:34:09 IST
disposal of the appeal and they shall be released on bail for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 29.8.2022 and all other subsequent dates,
as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.05.12 14:34:09 IST
