Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1 CRA-6364-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6364 of 2024
(RAJENDRA DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 01-10-2024
Mr. Anand Chawla - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Gitesh Singh Thakur- Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No. 26100/2024, second application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant Rajendra Dubey.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 409 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that instant case has been
registered on the basis of report/complaint lodged by the present appellant. It
is also urged that in the instant case four departmental enquiries were
conducted, i.e., Ex. P/1, P/5, P/69 and P/70 and in all enquiries, it was held
that there is joint and common liability. Further, after referring to para 62, 63
and 68 of the impugned judgment, it is also urged that as per finding of trial
Court, all the accused are jointly liable for the offence. It is also urged that
apart from the present appellant, the jail sentence of all other co-accused has
been suspended and they have been released on bail. Further, after referring
to deposition of PW-14 (Para -28), PW-2 (Para 8 and 10), PW-1 (Para-48),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUNDAN
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/1/2024
7:01:37 PM
2 CRA-6364-2024
PW-15 (Para 12), it is urged that stock was never physically verified.
Further, after referring to Para 11 of PW-15, Para 26 of PW-1, Paras 25 and
26 of PW-14 and Para 15 of PW-2, it is urged that from evidence on record,
it is not established that there was any dishonest misappropriation of any
amount or property. There is nothing on record to show that which accused
caused how much loss. It is also urged that Cooperative department did not
lodge any report. Further, after referring to deposition of PW-1, PW-14 and
PW-15, it is urged that accounts of the society were never got audited and no
audit report has been perused by the prosecution witnesses. It is a case of
civil in nature. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to
age, medical condition and family condition of appellant to submit that
appellant be released on bail. Further, learned counsel for the appellant relied
upon the judgment reported in (1981) 3 SCC 10 Janeshwar Das Aggarwal
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and he also relied upon the judgment reported in
1976 JLJ 263 State of M.P. Vs. Hari Mohan and others. On the above
grounds, it is urged that jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and
he be released on bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has drawn the
attention of this Court to order-sheet dated 13.08.2024 to submit that the
present application for suspension of sentence is not maintainable. Order-
sheet dated 13.08.2024 reads as under:
"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.14374/2024
with liberty to renew the prayer after undergoing actual
3 CRA-6364-2024
sentence of one year.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14374/2024 is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. "
The present application for suspension of sentence has been filed on
23.09.2024, therefore, in view of order dated 13.08.2024, the present
application for suspension of sentence is not maintainable. Hence, without
going into the merits of the case, present application is dismissed in view of
order dated 13.08.2024.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.A.26100/2024 is disposed of.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
K.S.
