Rajesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1459 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 6012 of 2022 (RAJESH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 25-01-2023 Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Christopher Anthony - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal seems to be arguable, therefore, admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A. No. 21998/2022, which is second application filed on

behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. His earlier application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 25.8.2022 The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 420/34, 409/120B of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.3000/- respectively with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. The trial

Court has failed to appreciate that no amount was entrusted by the Government to the appellant and the amount was released under the signatures of the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, therefore, no case under Sections 409, 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant was only incharge of inspecting the place of Signature Not Verified SAN

construction and not for making any payments. Learned counsel for the Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.01.28 13:53:03 IST

appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

o f N. Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI passed on 13.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2010, wherein in Para 43 the Supreme Court has observed that unless there is some actual use by the accused in violation of law or contract, coupled with dishonest intention, there is no criminal breach of trust. The second significant expression is 'mis- appropriates' which means improperly setting apart for ones use and to the exclusion of the owner. He has further placed reliance on the decision Division Bench of Indore Bench of this Court rendered in Kunwar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2018) 2 MPWN 303 wherein in Para 12, it has been observed that the Court is well aware that there is presumption in case of

financial irregularity and there is also heavy duty on the person approving financial proposal to be more cautious, however, any negligence in performing their duty would not incur any criminal liability and for criminal liability specific unlawful gain has to be indicated.

It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 8.7.2022 and there is a bleak possibility of disposal of this appeal in near future, hence jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and may be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Earlier application of the appellant was dismissed on merit looking to the serious nature of offence committed by the appellant whereby a huge amount has been embezzled as well as looking to the findings of the trial Court.

The trial Court in the impugned judgment has observed that though the

Signature Not Verified appellant was not entrusted with the amount in question, however, construction SAN

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE in regard to the said amount was to be made by co-accused Ramkrishna @ Date: 2023.01.28 13:53:03 IST

Ramkushal and valuation was to be done by the appellant, on the basis of said

report, the amount was to be released, but it was not done, therefore, they are found involved in criminal breach of trust. The trial Court has further observed that if it was in the knowledge of the appellant that the amount was released to co-accused Ramkushal @ Ramkrishna without there being any construction, he ought to have made complaint in this regard, which he has failed to do.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant regarding his dishonest intention, hence the cases relied upon by the appellant are of no help to him Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any change in the circumstances after dismissal of the aforesaid application on merit.

In view of the aforesaid, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail. The application is hereby dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

PB

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.01.28 13:53:03 IST