Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrakant Sanodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10241 of 2023
(CHANDRAKANT SANODIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-12-2023
Shri Shishir Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent/SPE (Lokayukt).
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Trial Court record perused.
Prima-facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for final
hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.19319 of 2023, an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant, pending the appeal.
Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections
409/120-B of IPC & Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- &
R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations
vide judgment dated 02.08.2023 passed in SC Lok No.- 05/2017 (State of M.P.
through Special Police Establishment vs. Chandrakant Sanodiya & another)
by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni (MP). All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been
erroneously convicted by learned trial Court as it has not properly appreciated
the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record. It is submitted
that evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and contradictions
and such omissions and contradictions have not been considered in right
perspective by the learned trial Court. It is also submitted that learned trial Court
at one hand has acquitted the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, but contrary has convicted under Sections 409/120-B of IPC
and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the P.C. Act, which shows that learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate various contradictions, omissions and documentary
evidence on record. It is further submitted that the appellant has already
suffered 4 months in jail. He has fair chances to succeed in appeal. There is no
possibility of coming of this appeal for hearing in near future. Therefore, if the
execution of jail sentence of appellant is not suspended, the purpose of filing
this appeal would become futile. Thus, it is prayed that custodial jail sentence of
the appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt has
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.
I have gone through the evidence & documents on record and findings
recorded by the learned trial Court.
Having taken into consideration the nature of sentence and that fact that
appellant has already suffered four months incarceration & there is bleak
possibility of hearing this appeal in near future, I deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence o f the appellant, pending the appeal. Consequently,
I.A.No.19319 of 2023 is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant
Chandrakant Sanodiya is hereby suspended subject to depositing the entire
fine amount, if not already deposited. It is directed that the appellant be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand only) 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 on 05.03.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by that
Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course alongwith CRA No.10179 of
2023.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
