Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsingh Thakur vs State Of M.P. on 13 February, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRR No. 1995 of 2023
(RAMSINGH THAKUR Vs STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 13-02-2024
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate - with Shri Rohit Sharma -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A No.16361/2023, which is second application under
Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved
on behalf of the petitioner.
Vide judgment dated 03.05.2023 passed in Cr.A. No.01/2018, the
petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 420 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Section 467 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Section
468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and
Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of
Rs.4,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record. The maximum jail sentence awarded to the applicant is of three years.
The petitioner is in custody and 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.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and the
records of the courts below.
This is second bail application filed under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. The
earlier one was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2023.
The reason for dismissal was the petitioner was looking after the task of cashier
in Regional Gramin Bank, Karanjia and was assigned the job of receipt and
withdrawal of money. The trial Court had observed that amount was withdrawn
from the bank accounts of customers through withdrawal forms that were not
signed by the Superior Authority.
This second bail application has been argued that this finding of trial
Court is against the facts and for this, it was requested that the withdrawal
forms which were relied upon in evidence by the trial Court need to be
examined. Those documents were not sent along with record, hence, Registry
was directed to summon them from the trial Court. That record has now been
received.
The withdrawal forms produced in evidence reveal that they all bear
signatures on the place where the Officer was supposed to put his signature.
The Bank Manager during this period was Vinod Kumar Kashyap. He is
examined as P.W.11 and in his entire testimony, he has not made any claim that
these withdrawal forms do not bear his signature.
Shiv Kumar Swarnakar (PW-12), the Enquiry Officer has although
claimed that these withdrawal forms were not signed by the then Bank Manager,
but in the absence of any such claim made by Vinod Kumar Kashyap (PW-11)
this testimony is apparently not much reliable. Incidentally, the handwriting
expert has not been examined in this case as witness and it has been aptly
argued by the learned counsel for appellant that in the absence of his testimony,
the report of handwriting expert is not admissible in evidence under Section 293
of Cr.P.C.
The learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of prosecution
witnesses Manju Shukla (PW-21), Rekha Shukla (PW-17), K.S. Paraste (PW-
15) and Laxman Singh Maravi (PW-27) but considering the prosecution
evidence in its entirety and in the absence of authentic opinion about the
handwriting or signature of appellant for the purpose of forgery, this repeat
application deserves to be allowed after physical examination of withdrawal
forms and other documents received from trial Court at the subsequent stage.
It also needs to be mentioned here that the trial Court was impressed by the fact
that entries of withdrawal were not made in the passbook, the changes in
withdrawal form were not counter signed by the drawer and interpolation was
made in the internal books of the bank, but again they were done in the
handwriting of appellant, is a question which could have been established
through the report of handwriting expert. Further it is not an unusual practice in
banking system that passbooks are not updated timely.
Upon these new set of facts which were not argued earlier, this repeat
application for suspension of sentence is allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the
trial Court concerned on 22.04.2024 and on such other dates as may be fixed
in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
NP
