Mansingh Tekam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13867 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 7162 of 2023
                                      (MANSINGH TEKAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                          CRA/07071/2023, CRA/07226/2023, CRA/07511/2023
                         Dated : 24-08-2023
                               Shri Sanjay Sharma - Advocate for appellants No. 1 Mansingh Tekam

                         and No.2 Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say in CRA No.7162 of 2023.
                               Shri Shishir Soni - Advocate for appellant Nilesh Lilhare in CRA
                         No.7071 of 2023.
                               Shri D. K. Sharma - Advocate for appellant No.Punaram Sahu in CRA

                         No.7226 of 2023.
                               Shri Basant Raj Pandey - Advocate for appellant Salikram Dhurve in
                         CRA No.7511 of 2023.
                               Shri       Akhilendra     Singh    -   Government      Advocate     for   the
                         respondent/State.

Heard I.A No.13214 of 2023, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Mansingh Tekam & Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say , I.A.No. 12854 of 2023 for appellant Nilesh Lilhare (CRA No.7071/2023), I.A.No.13435 of 2023 for

appellant Punaram Sahu (CRA No.7226 of 2023) and I.A.No.13696 of 2023 for appellant Salikram Dhurve (CRA No.7511 of 2023) arising out of judgment dated 13/05/2023 delivered in S.T. No.2400392/2016 by Additional Sessions Judge, Beihar District Balaghat (MP).

The appellants Mansingh Tekam and Lakhan Sahay Tekam have been convicted under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,00,000/-, Section 420/120-B of IPC and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

8/25/2023 10:41:03 AM

sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and Section 06 of M.P. Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulations. In addition, appellant Mansingh has also been convicted under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.

The appellants Punaram Sahu, Nilesh Lilhare and Salikram Dhurve have been convicted under Section 420/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-. In addition, appellant Salikram Dhurve though convicted under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC but has been sentenced

for the graver offence i.e. Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants while arguing for appellants Mansingh Tekam & Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say submits that the Court below has imposed aforesaid sentence on these appellants out of which Mansingh has undergone 5 years 11 months and 2 days and Lakhan Sahay Tekam has undergone 4 years 11 months and 29 days on 13/05/2023 (i.e. date of judgment). By taking this Court to the prosecution story, it is submitted that these appellants were allegedly in the managing capacity of Satguru Sai Civil Construction Limited Company. The money was allegedly taken from general public with the assurance that it will be multiplied. The prosecution led evidence but para-47 of impugned judgment leaves no room for any doubt that no person from general public/depositor was introduced as a prosecution witness. All prosecution witnesses were agents of the Company. Para-46 of the impugned judgment shows that the prosecution witnesses apprised the Court that the compromise/settlements have taken place. Learned counsel for the appellants Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

8/25/2023 10:41:03 AM

submits that there is no iota of evidence for reaching to the conclusion to which Court below arrived at in Para-78 of the judgment. Para-51 of the impugned judgment shows that without there being any verification of signatures by hand writing expert, the Court below itself undertook that task which in the facts and circumstances of the case was not proper. In nutshell, in absence of single witness who deposed that the money so deposited by him has not been returned back to him, the Court below was not justified in holding the appellants as guilty. Final hearing of these appeals is not possible in near future, therefore, remaining jail sentence of these appellants may be suspended.

Shri Shishir Soni, Shri D. K. Sharma and Shri Basant Raj Pandey, learned counsel for remaining appellants urged that these appellants were agents of the said company. They were working in the capacity of an employee. There is no iota of material against them to show that they have committed any offence. They remained in custody till the date of judgment for about 4 months and 7 days. Final hearing of these appeals is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of these appellants may also be suspended.

Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgment.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, period of custody and total

sentence imposed, coupled with the fact that final hearing of these appeals is not possible in near future, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of these appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No.13214 of 2023, 12854 of 2023, 13435 of 2023 and 13696 of 2023 are allowed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU Signing time:

8/25/2023 10:41:03 AM

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of appellants - Mansingh Tekam & Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say (CRA No.7162 of 2023), Nilesh Lilhare (CRA No.7071/2023), Punaram Sahu (CRA No.7226 of 2023) and Salikram Dhurve (CRA No.7511 of 2023) are hereby suspended and it is directed that these appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further

direction to appear before the trial Court, Beihar District Balaghat on 30 th October, 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the said Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

At this stage, Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the fine imposed on appellants Mansingh Tekam & Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- is disproportionate in nature and may be reduced because appellants may not be able to deposit the same.

The prayer is reasonable, therefore, allowed.

At this stage, appellants Mansingh Tekam & Lakhan Sahay Tekam @ Lakhan Say shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each as fine and question of depositing the remaining amount shall be subject to final outcome of the appeal.

Certified copy as per Rules.

                            (SUJOY PAUL)                                 (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                               JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                         manju
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
8/25/2023 10:41:03 AM





Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
8/25/2023 10:41:03 AM