Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13666 MP

1                          Cr.A.No.8881/2022
                      (Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)

Indore : Dated 17.10.2022
      Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A.No.13588/2022, first application for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 471 r/w 120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.9.2022 passed by 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District Rajgarh in S.T.No.66/2013.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant and co-accused persons Sunil and Narayan were Manager and Computer Operators in the Kharedi Kendra Sanstha, Pachore. They in connivance with about 14 farmers/co-accused persons mis-stating the areas of their agricultural land reflected purchase of more wheat than their actual

(Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)

yield and make wrongful gain of about Rs.79,60,980/- to them i.e. farmers/co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution case is totally based on enquiry report submitted by complainant Ashok Kumar (PW-1), who admitted in his cross-examination that he himself has not made any enquiry or verification about the purchase of wheat. He further submits that registration of area of the land owned by the farmers were done at Rajgarh, while wheat were purchased at Pachore on the basis of registered area of the farmers. Appellant has issued the cheques in favour of farmers co-accused, but amount of which has admittedly not disbursed. Government has not suffered any loss. There is no evidence against the appellant. Impugned judgment convicting the appellant is not sustainable. Appellant was enlarged on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. 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 has opposed the prayer and submits that it was the duty of the appellant alongwith other officials posted at Pachore that they should verify the Rin Pustika, registration slip before purchasing the wheat. They did not follow the procedure and intentionally in connivance with other co- accused persons purchased excess wheat from them and issued the cheques in favour of the beneficiaries farmers. Matter relates to

(Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)

defalcation of huge amount, therefore, appellant is not entitled for bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Matter relates to the year 2012, wherein trial concluded on 16.9.2022, appellant was enlarged on bail during investigation as well as during trial, prosecution case is based on enquiry report submitted by the complainant Ashok Kumar, who admitted in his cross- examination that he did not verify/enquire about the acts of the appellant and co-accused persons as the case is based on documentary evidence, therefore, conclusion of appeal will take considerable long time, amount said to be defalcated was not disbursed in the account of farmers, in view of the aforesaid considering the nature of allegations alleged against the appellant and also considering the material produced on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A.No.13588/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 19.12.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

(Rambabu Vs. State of M.P.)

I.A.No.13588/2022 is allowed.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge Patil

Digitally signed by SHAILESH PATIL Date: 2022.10.18 14:06:59 +05'30'