Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Bihari Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11969 of 2023
(SHYAM BIHARI SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-02-2024
Shri Ravi Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.17327/2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant- Shyam Bihari Sharma seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo four years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2023 passed by Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption) Act, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Case No-
300003/2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant referring to Para Nos.21 and 22 of the
judgment submits that there are material inconsistencies with regard to admitted
thumb impression of deceased Bharosi taken from his KCC bank account.
Therefore, learned trial Court committed an error in relying on report of
Handwriting Expert to the effect that vasiyatnama (Will) (Exhibit P-17) does
not bear thumb impression of Bharosi S/o Arjun. Appellant was working as
Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Badka Gaon. The conclusion of Trial Court on
the basis of report of Handwriting Expert is erroneous. Learned counsel further
submits that appellant has issued the Death Certificate on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 28-02-2024
10:10:27 AM
2
documents submitted by relatives of Bharosi. Similar process was conducted
by Chandrabhan Singh Tomar (DW-3), therefore, the learned Trial Court
committed error in convicting the appellant Shyam Bihari Sharama for offence
of misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. Referring to Para Nos.11 and 12 of the
judgment, learned counsel contends that the sanction for prosecution Exhibit(P-
90) was not proved which has resulted in injustice to the appellant. Learned
counsel further contends that Krishna Bai (PW-3) w/o Bharosi Kushwah and
Bisna Bai (PW-8) did not support the prosecution.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and
surmises. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
sentencing the present appellant without appreciating the prosecution evidence
properly. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. Fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant. Appellant
has already undergone jail custody for six months. There is no likelihood of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future. Both the parties have amicably
settled the dispute, accordingly application for compromise is filed before the
Appellate Court. On these premised submissions, learned counsel prays that the
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he
may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the instant appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent State opposes the 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 appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal 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 appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). He shall appear before the Trial Court on 08.04.2024 and on such
further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed for
such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his/her/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 appellant 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 appellant does not appear on the date of his appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance 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 appellant 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 appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to
the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.17327/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Vijay
