Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.S. Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12248 of 2022
(M.S. YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-02-2023
Shri Amit Lahoti, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.1001/2023, first application u/Sec. 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.12.2022
passed in S.T. No.59/2018 by Session Judge Sheopur whereby appellant has
been convicted and sentenced under Section 409 of IPC for 5 years RI with
fine of Rs.10,00,000/- with default stipulation.
Prosecution case in short is that, Project Officer of Integrated Tribal
Welfare Scheme, Karahal submitted a report in writing dated 15.02.1999 with
respect to the fact that the competent authority has sanctioned Rs.13.25 lacs to
the execution agency which is SDO (RES) for undertaking of 10 works and for
that purpose the SDO (appellant) vide its letter dated 23.09.1998 submitted to
deposit the aforesaid amount in the concerning bank account of the
government. For the purpose of starting the work, 6.50 lacs of Rupees were
given by way of account payee cheque on 16.10.1998. On 02.12.1998 the SDO
Kaahal sent the progress report and demanded the remaining amount and
thereafter one L.N. Tyagi was posted as SDO Karahal and took charge on
14.12.1998 who apprised the Executive Engineer, Division Sheopur that the
present appellant has only done the work of Rs.70,000/- out of Rs.6.50 lacs
and thus the appellant has allegedly siphoned off the amount of Rs.5.47 lacs
and did not submit any details of the work done by him.
It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail
during trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to him. During trial, he
remained in custody for seven months. The appellant is aged about 70 years.
Final hearing of the appeal will take time. Therefore, prayer for suspension of
sentence has been made.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the fact that an early hearing of this case is not possible, I.A.
No.1001/2023 is allowed.
It is therefore, directed that if appellant deposits the entire fine amount, if
not already deposited, and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 10th July, 2023 and on such further dates as may be
fixed by the office in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him
shall remain suspended till further orders and he shall be released on bail.
Application (I.A. No.1001/2023) is allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.02.03
14:12:21 -08'00'
