Sujeet Sirothiya @ Sandeep @ Sonu ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2592 MP

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 5752 of 2022
                              (SUJEET SIROTHIYA @ SANDEEP @ SONU UPADHYAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 13-02-2023
                                Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Eshaan Datt, advocate

                          for the appellant.
                                Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Government Advocate for the
                          respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.12399/2022, which is the first application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant Sujeet Sirothiya @ Sandeep @ Sonu Upadhyay.

The appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated, 02/07/2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Umariya (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.268/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467 (on three counts), 468 (on three counts) and sentenced as to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for five years with fine

of Rs.2,000/- (for each count) and R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (for each count) respectively with stipulation and with a direction that substantive jail sentence will run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of appellant is solely based on the report of the handwriting expert (Ex.P-5) and on the sole basis of report of the handwriting expert, the conviction cannot be sustained. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 14-Feb-23 6:36:36 PM

Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1091. He further submits that the allegation against the appellant is that he received an amount from the bank on bearer cheques i.e. cheque No.182104, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- dated 30/10/2006 (Article-A), cheque No.182106 amounting to Rs.4,24,000/- dated 24/11/2006 (Article-B) and cheque No.182113 amounting to Rs.5,60,000/- dated 04/01/2007 (Article-C) which were drawn in the name of Shri R.B. Tiwari and for that offence, appellant was convicted under Section 419 of the I.P.C. for one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 420 of the I.P.C. for two years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 468 of the I.P.C. (on three counts) for two years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- (for each count).

He further submits that the allegation against the appellant is that he has signed as Shri R.B. Tiwari on the back portion of the cheques (Article- A & C) and as R. Tiwari on the back portion of the cheque (Article-B), and by impersonating himself as R.B. Tiwari, appellant received the cheque amounts. Learned counsel further submits that the offence is punishable under Section 419 of the I.P.C. and for that offence learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellant for a period of one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 02/07/2022, and during the trial, he remained in jail for about two months, thus appellant remained in custody for about 10 months in jail. He further submits that the offence under Section 467 of the I.P.C. is not proved and made out against the appellant because he has not forged the cheques (Articles A, B & C). The appellant is not a habitual offender and he has no criminal past. This appeal is of the year 2022, and final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, and if the jail sentence of the appellant is not suspended, then the purpose to file this appeal would be

Signature Not Verified frustrated. Hence, it is prayed that the application be allowed and the remaining Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 14-Feb-23 6:36:36 PM

jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail.

Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment after proper appreciation of evidence that came on record and has rightly held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and looking at the short period of sentence, without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No.12399/2022 is allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of appellant Sujeet Sirothiya @ Sandeep @ Sonu Upadhyay is hereby suspended and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for 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, Umariya on 01st May, 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                               (SUJOY PAUL)                               (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                  JUDGE                                            JUDGE

                          as




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 14-Feb-23
6:36:36 PM