Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3650 of 2022
(VINOD GOND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-06-2023
Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Chaturvedi - Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8928/2023, which is fifth application under Section
389(1) of CrPC for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.
Appellant's first application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 18.7.2022. His second and third applications
were dismissed vide orders dated 16.8.2022 and 15.11.2022, while fourth
application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 20.3.2023.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable
under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo
three years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, under Section 13(1), 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo four years RI with fine of
Rs.2000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.2.2022 passed in Special Case No.05/2018 by Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior.
Prosecution case in brief is that complainant's father's agricultural land
bearing survey No.485 area 0.67 hectare is situated in village Dayeli, Tehsil
Morar, District Gwalior. Adjacent to the aforesaid land, complainant's neighbor
Ram Lakhan's land bearing survey Nos.180 area 0.15 hectare, 182 area 0.42
hectare and 193 area 0.62 hectare are situated. Complainant and his neighbor
Ram Lakhan approached the Halka Patwari, appellant Vinod Gond for
disbursement of compensation of damaged crops, then he demanded an
amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification. Complainant made a written
complaint dated 4.4.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Special
Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior, which was marked to Inspector Kavindra
Singh Chauhan, who provided voice recorder for recording the conversation of
the appellant with regard to demand of bribe money. On 4.4.2016, complainant
along with shadow witness, constable Mahesh Pal went to appellant's house and
recorded conversation with regard to demand of bribe money and thereafter on
5.4.2016 submitted the same along with written complaint Ex.P/5. FIR was
lodged against the appellant and trap was organized wherein on 5.4.2016
appellant was caught red handed accepting the tainted currency notes through
co-accused Bablu.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant's complaint
apparently appears to be concocted as he himself stated in his statement during
trial that demand of Rs.10,000/- was made by the appellant for enhancing an
amount of Rs.9,000/- as compensation. By referring to para 17 of the statement
of the complainant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has been
stated by the complainant that on 3.4.2016 when he went to the appellant's
house to give bribe, appellant asked him as to for what purpose he has come to
his house. Admittedly the tainted currency were not seized from the possession
of the appellant, but co-accused Bablu. Complainant's statement with regard to
the incident are inconsistent with his complaint and earlier statement recorded
during investigation. Appellant is in custody and has suffered till now about one
year and six months' incarceration out of four years maximum sentence
awarded to the appellant.Co-accused Bablu has already been enlarged on bail
vide order dated 26.9.2022 passed in CRA No.3450/2022. There is no
likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, therefore, the appellant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and
submits that appellant's earlier second application filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.8.2022 and there is no
circumstantial change in the case, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail.
By referring to para 30 of the judgment, learned counsel for the State submits
that appellant was very well aware about the fact that complainant came to his
house to give bribe money and co-accused Bablu asked the complainant as to
why he had come with him. By referring to para 37 and 38 of the impugned
judgment, he further submits that it has been specifically mentioned therein that
on which date and what amount was to be paid to the complainant, therefore,
confusion created by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the
amount of compensation is baseless. Appellant was caught red handed
accepting the tainted currency notes. Offences alleged against the appellant are
serious in nature, therefore the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, there remains no doubt that the appellant was
posted as Halka Patwari of the area where complainant's father's agricultural
land is situated and compensation of hailstorm was to be paid to the
agriculturist whose crops were damaged. The record relating to the
compensation amount payable to the complainant has not been seized from the
possession of the appellant, therefore, submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellant that appellant was was not having any occasion to demand
money from the complainant is not sustainable. So far as the demand and
acceptance of tainted currency notes is concerned, considering the statement of
the complainant (PW-1) and the fact that tainted currency notes have been
seized from the possession of the co-accused Bablu, so also the fact that
appellant has suffered till now one year and six months' incarceration and there
is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in the near future, but without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is
directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.
I t 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 22.08.2023, and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.8928/2023 is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2023.06.22
19:15:27 +05'30'
