Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5161 of 2023
(RAJENDRA KUMAR NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-12-2023
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate - with Shri Rohit Sharma -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Hitendra Golhani - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Reserved on : 18.12.2023
Pronounced on : 20.12.2023
Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.
Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.8026/2023, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of sole appellant Rajendra Kumar Namdeo.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 409/34, 467/34 and 468/34 read with Section 471/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 7 years and R.I. for 7 years,
with fine of Rs.5,000/- (on each count) respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the case. He also submits that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and committed an error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid
offences. The appellant is in custody and the appeal would take considerable
time to conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the
directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is
prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In this application for suspension of sentence, the grounds raised by the
appellant are that he did not forge any document and the payment was made to
him after completion of work and after passing of resolution by the concerned
Gram Sabha.
It has also been argued by the appellant that the work was executed by
his son but the payment was made to him. Besides receiving the amount, he was
not involved in any other act.
The facts of the case are that forged cheques were used to withdraw the
public money showing execution of Government work but no work against the
withdrawn amount was completed. This fact cannot be challenged that the
applicant was not the executor of forged cheques but it cannot be denied by
him that the amount withdrawn through these forged cheques was deposited in
his bank account. There is no evidence on record which would show that the
work against which this amount was paid was undertaken and executed by his
son. In this case, the applicant was working at the time of incident as Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Chorhata, and in his favour the amount of cheques forged by
another Secretary, namely co-accused Ravendra Mishra, has deposited.
Having considered these facts, the application for suspension of sentence
filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra Kumar Namdeo is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.22 17:27:06 +05'30'
