Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhavsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8794 of 2022
(BHAVSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-12-2023
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Tarun Pagare appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard on IA No.14774/2023, which is second application for suspension
of jail sentence of appellant Bhavsingh.
2. The earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The appellant has been convicted under section 420/120-B, 467/120-B,
467/120-B, 471/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5,7,5,1 years RI with
fine of Rs.1000,1000,1000,500/-.
4. That, as per the case of prosecution, on 28.10.2013 complainant Shri
Dayanand Patidar, the then Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Branch-
Julwania appeared before the SHO of police station- Rajpur, District- Barwani
and prefer a written complaint on letter head against the Mohan Dawar, Shivram
Bhilala, Bhavsingh Bhilala and Dariyav Bhilala. It is alleged in the written
complaint that, the agriculturist Mohan S/o. Shri Somna Ji Dawar having
agriculture land situated at survey No. 19/3, 20/3, 269/3, 269/5 total Rakba 7.73
Hactare, Patwari Halka No. 57, Bhorwada and having account no. 31941014559
and on the said agriculture land the bank has approved the crop and on the said
agriculture land the bank has approved the crop loan of Rs. 2,10,000/- and the
same was disbursed on 15.09.2011. It is stated that, to the agriculturist Shivram
S/o. Shri Richu Ji Dawar having agriculture land situated at survey No. 395/05,
17/02 total Rakba 4.881 Hactare, Patwari Halka No. 59, Bhorwada and having
account no. 32063859280 and on the said agriculture land the bank has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-12-2023
14:31:08
2
approved the crop loan of Rs. 2,90,000/- and the same was disbursed on
30.11.2011. It is further stated that, the agriculturist Bhavsingh S/o. Shri Balu Ji
Bhilala having agriculture land situated at survey No. 51/ 2, 51/03, total Rakba
5.600 Hactare, Patwari Halka No. 60, Bhorwada and having account no.
20740228 and on the said agriculture land the bank has approved the crop loan
of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the same was disbursed on 16.11.2011. It is further stated
that, the agriculturist Dariyav S/o. Shri Kunwarsingh Ji Bhilala having agriculture
land situated at survey No. 444, 505, 506, 910, 911 total Rakba 3.690 Hactare,
Patwari Halka No. 60, Bhorwada and having account no. 32069638985 and on
the said agriculture land the bank has approved the crop loan of Rs. 2,30,000/-
and the same was disbursed on 17.11.2011. It is alleged that, when the bank
verified the details of agricultural land of aforesaid persons with the revenue
department, no entry was found in the revenue records regarding the aforesaid
agricultural lands which were kept as mortgage by the borrowers. It is alleged
that, on enquiry the bank found that Kashiram S/o Ganpat, Mukesh S/o
Kashiram Verma & Pankaj S/o Muniya @ Rajaram Kushwah has prepared
forged documents (revenue records) and on the basis of alleged forged
documents, the loan was obtained & along with them, the Legal Counsel for
Bank Chandrashekhar Sen who prepared the search of the aforesaid properties,
was also implicated. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry, the complainant
made a written complaint to the police station- Rajpur, District- Barwani upon
which on
28.10.2013 at around 15.15 hrs. A first information report was registered at
Crime No.: 433/2013 against the appellant/accused & other co-accused persons
for the offences U/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-12-2023
14:31:08
3
while convicting the appellant under section 467 of IPC because as per the
prosecution case, the allegation for preparation of forged documents were made
against the co-accused Kashiram, Mukesh and Pankaj and against the applicant
Bhavsingh, Mohan, Shivram, Dariyav and Kashiram the allegation is that they
had used the aforesaid forged documents as genuine document knowing that
they are forged documents.
6. It is argued that at the most offence shall be made out under section
471 of IPC for which the appellant has been convicted for one year and fine
amount. The appellant has already undergone jail sentence of one year and eight
months. During the trial, he was on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C No.7310/2015
on the condition of depositing Rs.50,000/-. The said amount has been
deposited and as per allegation of the prosecutrix the remaining balance amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- which he is ready to deposit before the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the order of
conviction and sentence on the ground that the appellant has used the forged
documents as genuine document.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
discussion made by the trial Court in para 3-A of the impugned judgment, it is
evident that the allegation against the co-accused Kashiram and Pankaj are for
preparation of forged revenue record and against the appellant the allegation is
for using the same as genuine documents for obtaining the loan. Thus, there is
no allegation of preparation of forged documents against the appellant under
section 467 of IPC. The appellant is ready to deposit the balance loan amount .
The appellant is in custody for about one year and eight months. Considering
the same, I am of the view that the appellant Bhavsingh is entitled for grant of
suspension of sentence on the condition that the appellant Bhavsingh shall
deposit remaining balance of Rs.2,00,00/- before the trial Court at the time of
release.
9. Accordingly, I.A No. 14774/2023 is allowed. The jail sentence of
appellant Bhavsingh is suspended upon his/her depositing the fine amount, if
not already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court for his/her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8/2/2024
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.
10. With the aforesaid, I.A. is disposed off.
11. As a consequence, application for urgent hearing also stands
disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
