Kamlesh @ Baba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18036 MP

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         CRR No. 4031 of 2023
                                             (KAMLESH @ BABA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 30-10-2023
                                 Shri Rohit Pegwar - Advocate for the applicant.

                                 Ms. Priti Singh - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

The revision being arguable is admitted for hearing. Also heard on I.A. No.21202/2023, which is first application filed

under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The applicant has been convicted by the appellate Court under Section under Section 25(1-b)(a) and 25(1)(a) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has n o t properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is two years. The final disposal of this revision will take considerable time, therefore, the jail sentence

of the applicant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the records and the judgments of the Courts below.

I n this case, the applicant was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act by the appellate Court while his appeal was allowed regarding Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. This application for suspension of sentence has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 10/31/2023 2:24:03 PM

argued on the ground that seizure witness as well as independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and one seizure witness, who testified in favour of prosecution, is the pocket witness of police.

This application has also been argued on the ground that the person who made the seizure was also the investigating officer. Going through the statements of police witnesses, no case of false implication is made out against the applicant. Also there was no enmity between the seizure officer and the applicant. After seeking due sanction, the applicant was prosecuted for the offence and credibility of prosecution evidence has not been prima-facie assailed here, hence, no case for suspension of sentence is made out.

Accordingly, I.A. No.21202/2023 is dismissed. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

pnm

Signature Not Verified Signed by: POONAM MANEKAR Signing time: 10/31/2023 2:24:03 PM