Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8200 of 2023
(JITENDRA PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-09-2023
Shri Durgesh Kumar Singrore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the Court below is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.15153/2023, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on
behalf of the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 465 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section
471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-
and Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of
appellants was suspended by the trial Court till 25.07.2023 as mentioned in the
application. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 30.06.2023 has extended the
period of bail of appellant from 25.07.2023 to 25.09.2023. He was on bail
during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Also, the appeal
would take considerable time to conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate
surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed
by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of
sentence may be considered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 9/26/2023
6:01:12 PM
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the
court below.
In this case, the appellant was convicted by the trial Court for the offence
under Section 465, 471 and 420 of IPC for using a forged mark-sheet and use
of that document dishonestly for getting a government employment and thus,
receiving wrongful gain. This application for suspension of sentence has been
argued on the ground that appellant was issued a mark-sheet (Ex.-D/3) by his
school and for this, the statements of Principal of school Tulsidas Asati (PW-3)
have been relied upon. He has stated on oath that according to school entries
appellant had passed in the matriculation exam.
In contradiction to this fact, the mark-sheet that was provided by the
brother of appellant was sent for verification to the Madhyamik Shiksha
Mandal. The report received therefrom is Ex.P/16, which informs that the mark-
sheet (Ex.-D/3) showing pass result was a forged one, while the mark-sheet
supplied by the brother of appellant showing fail result was the genuine one.
It is argued on behalf of appellant that he had no means to ascertain
whether the mark-sheet provided by the school was genuine or forged, but this
argument cannot be accepted because even the brother of appellant, who is
admittedly having enmity with the appellant, was aware of the fact that by using
a forged mark-sheet appellant got employment. He could not have any source
to check and verify that the mark-sheet allegedly supplied to the appellant by the
school was a forged one. These brothers Dharmendra Patel (PW-1) and Rakesh
Patel (PW-2) are younger brothers of the appellant. Had the forgery of mark-
Signature Not Verified
sheet been not discussed in the family they would not have been aware about it.
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 9/26/2023
6:01:12 PM
Having considered the above facts and the implications of the crime
established against the appellant, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail
sentence and release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 9/26/2023
6:01:12 PM
