Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nageshwar Prasad Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11982 of 2022
(NAGESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 13-02-2024
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Ranjana Agnihotri - Deputy Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No.22417/2023, which is s e c o nd application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that maximum jail sentence
awarded to the appellant is of ten years. 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.
On 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.
This second application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.has been argued on
the ground that the amount of "Protsahan Rashi" was supposed to be
disbursed after completion of construction of toilets, but before the
construction could be completed, an FIR on false ground was registered and
this delayed the construction work. It has also been argued that despite this all
the toilets were constructed under the scheme and the appellant has also
refunded the so called amount of embezzlement. It is also submitted that the
beneficiaries have also admitted during their Court testimony that only because
of FIR the construction work of toilets was not completed in time. According
to appellant, he is a 70 years old ill person.
The record of trial Court reveals that the appellant was charged of the
offence of committing embezzlement of the amount which was supposed to be
paid against the construction of toilets for BPL beneficiaries. It is not mentioned
in the charge framed that the offence was committed only regarding the amount
obtained under any scheme of "Protsahan Rashi".
Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no credible evidence
available to prove the offence, but it has been admitted by appellant himself,
when he was examined as a defence witness (DW-3), that the whole amount of
Rs.4,98,000/- sent to Gram Panchayat, Tilwari was withdrawn by its Secretary
and similar procedure was adopted by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat,
Diyadol. He has also admitted that the amount of Rs.25 Lakh was sanctioned
for the entire Janpad Panchayat, Majholi and not to any individual Gram
Panchayat under that Janpad Panchayat where this embezzlement was
committed.
T he procedure adopted by the appellant shows that the entire amount
received in the joint account held by him was withdrawn for construction of
toilets without completing the construction work. He cannot successfully claim
that he was ignorant about the direction issued by the Government for utilization
of this amount. As there is no defence evidence to prove that only a part of
sanctioned amount was used, it cannot be successfully argued here that only a
part of sanctioned amount was withdrawn. In contrast prosecution evidence
reveals that the whole of the sanctioned amount was withdrawn without getting
the work completed.
Merely for the reason that the appellant is an old age person and has
deposited the defalcated amount, this application cannot be allowed. He is
found to be involved in embezzlement of public money and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in week commencing 18.03.2024.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
