Jay Lal Maneshwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7664 MP

                                     1
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT JABALPUR
                               CRA No. 4559 of 2023
             (JAY LAL MANESHWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 10-05-2023
         Shri Ashok Koshta- Advocate for the appellants.

         Shri J. S. Parihar - Panel Lawyer for the State.

         Heard on admission.
         Appeal is admitted for hearing.
         Heard on I.A. No.7219/2023, which is an application under Section 389

of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Jaylal
Maneshwar and Maniram arising out of judgment dated 02/03/2023 delivered
in Sessions Trial No.1300075/2016 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Seoni.
         Appellant no.1 Jaylal Maneshwar has been convicted for the offences
punishable under section 419/420-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2
years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, section 467/120-B of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and section 468/120-B of IPC

and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
stipulations.
         Appellant no.2 Maniram has been convicted for the offences
punishable under section 419 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, section 420/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, section 467 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and section 468 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
                                    2
stipulations.
       According to the prosecution case, on 1.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal
No.53/2010 listed before the Sessions Judge, Seoni, Jaylal was the accused and
in order to secure acquittal in the appeal, the appellants herein fradulently
impersonated one Maniram in place of complainant Jhanaklal (P.W.1) and also
obtained his forged signatures on the compromise petition and the court
proceedings.

       Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are

innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court has
not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on

record.         Considering the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the
prosecution evidence, the judgment of trial court is not sustainable. Final
disposal of instant appeal would take considerable time. Hence, prayer has
been made to suspend the jail sentence of the appellants.
       Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
       Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and judgment
of the trial court.
       Recently, Honourable the Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni
v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another decided in Criminal Appeal
Nos.1331-1332 of 2023 order dated 2.5.2023 held that in order to suspend
the substantive order of sentence under section 389 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record,
on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the
conviction may not be sustainable. The courts must endeavour to see as to
whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court
                                         3
can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances
of acquittal. It was further held that the appellate court should not reappreciate
the evidence at the stage of section 389 of Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few
lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution.
         The matter relates to cheating and impersonation in Court proceedings.
The appellants are the beneficiaries and perpetrators of the alleged act.
         The inconsistencies and lacunas pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellants has been dealt with by the Trial Court. Considering the lacunas and
inconsistencies pointed out, in totality, this court does not prima facie find that
the conviction would not be sustainable. Therefore, without commenting on
merits of the case, this court is not inclined to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellants.
         Accordingly, I.A No.7219/2023 is rejected.
         List this case for final hearing in due course.
         Certified copy as per rules.



                                                    (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
                                                             JUDGE
ps

PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA
2023.05.11

17:33:25 +05'30'