Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omkar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 15703 of 2023
(OMKAR SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-05-2024
Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for appellant.
Shri G.S. Thakur - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
1. Appellant has filed an application i.e. I.A. No.1829/2024 for
condonation of delay in filing criminal appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.1829/2024 is
allowed. Delay of 49 days in filing appeal is condoned.
3. Heard on admission.
4. Appeal is admitted for hearing.
5. Also heard on I.A. No.29700/2023 which is an application under
Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence.
6 . Appellant h a s been convicted under Section 8 read with Section
20(Kha)(ii) (Aa)/20(b) (ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 5 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- along with default stipulations.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant
has been convicted for fixed short term sentence. Appeal is likely to take some
time for hearing. Considering the short and fixed term of sentence, appellant's
sentence be suspended and he may be released on bail.
8. Counsel appearing for appellant relied on judgments passed by Apex
Court in cases of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat,
reported in AIR 2000 SC 821 and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 2013 SC 357. Placing reliance on said judgments, it was
argued that memorandum of information received from informer has not been
prepared by police. It is submitted that in said cases, it was held that non-
recording of information would deprive accused in Court of material to
ascertain what was the precise information, therefore, he may be adversely
affected which is the good ground for acquittal. It is submitted that in this case
also, no memorandum of information received by police has been prepared.
9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed
the application for suspension of sentence.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Information of memorandum prepared by police is to be send
immediately to senior officers which can show the authenticity of information
received and facts of the case. No mukhbir panchnama has been prepared.
12. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. for
suspension of sentence is allowed. It is directed that jail sentence imposed
upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal
and appellant shall be released on bail, on his depositing the entire amount of
fine, if not already deposited, and on 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 the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 21.08.2024 and all other subsequent dates, as may be
fixed by the Registry in this regard.
13. List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
14. C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
