Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5666 of 2021
(RAJESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
DATED : 10-07-2023
Shri Vikas Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta - Advocate for respondent/EOW.
Heard on I.A.No.1575/2023, which is second application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
moved on behalf of appellant.
2. Appellant's first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 11/7/2022.
3. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 120-B
and 420/120-B of IPC vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 31/8/2021 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act, Gwalior in Case No. SC EOW/300014/2012 and
sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
120-B IPC Two years RI Rs.2000/- RI for 3 months
420/120-B IPC Four Years RI Rs.5000/- RI for 6 months
4. Prosecution case in brief is that in the years 2005-2006 and 2006-
2007 co-accused R.G. Gupta being the Regional Manager of MP
Hathkargha Bunkar Sahkari Sangh, Gwalior in connivance with the
appellant Rajesh Gupta, who is the Proprietor of Shweta Handloom,
issued about 112 supply orders to him without any contract, whereafter
on the basis of forged and fabricated bills, withdrew and
misappropriated huge amount.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide impugned
judgment dated 31/8/2021 appellant has been acquitted from the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. It has
been nowhere mentioned that how much amount was misappropriated
in the matter or the goods supplied by the appellant were substandard.
He referring the statements of A.S. Tomar (PW-7) and Ramprasad Kori
(PW-8) submits that it is not the prosecution's case that in pursuance of
supply order issued by the co-accused, goods were not supplied to the
department by the appellant. All the allegations alleged against the
appellant are vague and omnibus. Appellant is an old and infirm person
aged about 51 years. He is in custody since 31/8/2021 and has suffered
more than one year and ten months' incarceration out of four years'
maximum sentence awarded to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of
this appeal in near future. Therefore, his remaining jail sentence be
suspended and he be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/EOW has opposed the prayer
and submits that admittedly the co-accused R.G. Gupta was posted as
Regional Manager, MP Hathkargha Bunkar Sahkari Sangh, Gwalior at
the relevant period of time. About 12 representatives of Bunkar Sahkari
Samiti and Units made written complaint dated 12/7/2006 against the
co-accused that he in connivance with the appellant, Proprietor of
Shweta Handloom, issued supply orders only to Shweta Hathkargha
Unit. During enquiry of the aforesaid complaint, it was revealed that co-
accused in connivance with the appellant Rajesh Gupta, Proprietor of
Shweta Hathkargha Unit, issued supply orders to his Hathkargha Unit
knowing the fact that Shweta Hathkargha Unit was not competent
enough to supply the required goods. Appellant on the basis of forged
and fabricated bills received payment of huge amount. Prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court has not
committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offences
mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant is not entitled
to be released on bail.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. It is apparent from the impugned judgment that the allegations
alleged against the appellant that he on the basis of forged and
fabricated bills received payment of huge amount, has not been found
proved, hence, considering the nature of offence, which have been
found proved against the appellant and submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, so also considering the
period of custody of the appellant, which is about one year and ten
months, and the fact that there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal
in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
application is allowed and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant
is suspended.
8.1 It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already
not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along
with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly
on 25/08/2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
8.2 I.A. is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.07.11 14:24:32 +05'30'
