Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Vanshkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-3895-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRR No. 3895 of 2024
(SATISH VANSHKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 07-08-2024
Shri Rinku Rathour- Advocate for the revision/petitioner.
Shri Kamal Prajapati- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Record of the Courts below has already been received.
Revision being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No.15969 of 2024 , which is the first application under
Section 397(1) of CrPC for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of bail moved on behalf of revision petitioner- Satish Vanshkar.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30/07/2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2023 whereby,
the appeal preferred by the appellant (herein revision petitioner) against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.05.2023 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal
Case No.901289/2016 has been dismissed affirming the conviction under
Section 406 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in addition to the grounds,
mentioned in the application, contends that except complainant Ramkali
2 CRR-3895-2024
(PW-2) and the then Secretary Maharaj Singh (PW-3), no witness was
produced with regard to non-supply of material by the revision petitioner.
The Investigation Officer Nandkeshwar (PW-6) had accetped that he did not
enquire about the non-supply of material by the revision petitioner. He had
not recorded statement of any person from concerned village. He did not
enquire from Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat with regard to non-
supply of material. Ramkali (PW-2) and Maharaj Singh (PW-3) had failed to
explain the reasons of regular issuance of cheques with regard to supply of
material by the petitioner. Learned trial Court and First Appellate Court
ignored this important aspect of the matter and committed error in convicting
the petitioner merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegations of the
complainant and the then Panchayat Secretary, who are interested party in
the matter.
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned
Appellate Court did not properly consider the contentions raised in the
appeal. Learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed error in
convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner. Learned Counsel submits
that the revision petitioner was on bail during trial and during hearing of
appeal. Fine amount, as awarded by trial Court, has already been deposited
by the revision petitioner. There is no likelihood of early hearing of revision
in near future. On these grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of
remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner may be suspended and he may
be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/State opposes the
3 CRR-3895-2024
application and prays for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that
execution of remaining jail sentence of revision petitioner shall remain
suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged on bail
subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
(1). The revision petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine (if not
deposited) forthwith;
(2). The revision petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
18.10.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The revision petitioner shall ensure hearing of the revision on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation
on their behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from
attendance to the revision petitioner on any date, on sufficient cause being
shown [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules,
2008].
Where the revision petitioner does not appear on the date of his
appearance before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance
4 CRR-3895-2024
is shown, the Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable
warrants to secure his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High
Court. The Trial Court shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against
such revision petitioner and his surety without any reference to this Court
and without any impediment of the order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule
42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the revision
petitioners shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of
imprisonment under intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
*AVI*
