Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra Patel vs Rameshwar Deceased Through Lrs. Bhuri ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 CRR-4312-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 4312 of 2024
(GAJENDRA PATEL Vs RAMESHWAR DECEASED THROUGH LRS. BHURI BAI AND OTHERS )
Dated : 03-10-2024
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Mohanlal
has been served Dasti notice. His service report alongwith affidavit of
Shubham, son of revision petitioner Gajendra Patel has been filed vide
Document no. 10239/2024.
Heard on the question of admission.
Records of both the Courts haves been received.
Being arguable, the revision is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on IA No. 13904 of 2024, first application under Section
Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C / section 438(1) of BNSS, 2023. moved on behalf
of petitioner - Gajendra Patel seeking suspension of remaining sentence of
imprisonment and grant of bail.
Petitioner stood convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment with fine/compensation of Rs 25,00,000/- with default
stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.08.2024 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar,
District-Ujjain in Cr.A. No. 26/2023 affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 25/08/2022 passed by the JMFC, Badnagar,
Distt. Ujjain in SC NIA NO.200142/2017.
2 CRR-4312-2024
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that learned
Appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.
Further, the learned Appellate Court did not properly consider the
contentions raised in the appeal properly. Learned counsel referring to the
evidence of Sanjay (PW-1) and Mohanlal (PW-2) submits that both the
witnesses have specifically admitted that there was no transaction between
Gajendra Patel and Mohanlal. As per the complaint, cheques in question
were issued in reference to sale deed executed by Rameshwar [father of
Sanjay (PW-1)] in favour of Omprakash. It is further alleged that since
Omprakash and accused/petitioner Gajendra were close relative, cheques in
question were issued in the name of Mohanlal by Gajendra Patel. However,
there is no such statement in the sale deed. Rather, Sanjay (PW-1) and
Mohanlal (PW-2) have specifically admitted that sale deed dated 12/08/2016
bears the admission on the part of Rameshwar that he has received entire
consideration amount of Rs. 27,47,000/-, therefore, the complainant had
failed to prove existence of legally reparable debt or liability against which,
cheques in question were received The learned Appellate Court as well as
the Trial Court have committed error in convicting and sentencing present
petitioner without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. The
petitioner is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment since the date of
judgment of First Appellate Court i.e. 23/08/2024. He was on bail during
trial and first appeal and did not misuse the liberty, so granted to him during
trial and during hearing in First Appeal. The petitioner has already deposited
3 CRR-4312-2024
Rs.5,00,000/- against compensation amount. He is further ready to deposit
Rs. 5,00,000/-. There is no likelihood of hearing of revision in near future.
No criminal antecedents is reported against the revision petitioner. On these
grounds, learned Counsel prays that execution of remaining sentence of
imprisonment of the petitioner may be suspended and petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, but without
commenting upon 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 sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner shall
remain suspended during pendency of this revision and he shall be enlarged
on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lacs) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with following conditions:-
( 1 ) . The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- forthwith and shall also deposit the amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- every year on or before 31st of March, till final hearing
of the revision.
(2). The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
20.12.2024 and on such further dates as may be directed by the
Trial Court;
(3). The petitioner shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the
date fixed for such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal
representation on his behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
4 CRR-4312-2024
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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner
shall be forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under
intimation to the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, the IA stands allowed and disposed of.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
