Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
1 CRA-6653-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6653 of 2025
(SANTOSH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-08-2025
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta.
Heard on I.A. No.16414/2025, which is first application under Section 389
of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant.
2. This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 17.06.2025 passed by the
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Damoh, District Damoh
(M.P.) in S.C. LOK/04/2021, whereby the present appellant has been convicted
under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
sentenced to undergo four years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
3. Learned counsel for present appellant has submitted that present
appellant has a good case on merit. The original voice/tape recorder in which the
voice has been recorded by the prosecution agency has not been submitted before
the learned trial Court. A CD by help of computer has been prepared and transcript
based on the CD has also been submitted but since the original voice/tape recorder
has not been produced on behalf of prosecution, therefore, such evidence is of no
help to the prosecution. On the said ground, entire case of the prosecution
becomes doubtful. The certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is
pertaining to preparation of CD. He has also submitted that Ramesh (PW-5) is the
complainant and he has repeatedly changed his version as regards the presence
Roopnarayan, the co-accused, on spot as well as in regard to demand and amount
2 CRA-6653-2025
handed over to present appellant. Learned counsel for present appellant drew
attention of this Court towards various paras of the statement of complainant
Ramesh (PW-5) and submitted that there was no opportunity for demanding any
money from the complainant. The Investigating Officer has also admitted in his
evidence that the original voice/tape recorder has not been submitted before the
learned trial Court. Keeping in view the infirmities, contradictions and variations
in the statement of prosecution witnesses as well as the infirmities of the
prosecution case, present appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to present appellant. He has relied upon a judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aasif @ Pasha v. The State of U.P. & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No.3409/2025).
4. Per contra , learned Special Prosecutor has opposed the application on the
ground that the learned trial Court has dealt with every objection raised on behalf
of present appellant. The learned trial Court has considered the contentions on
behalf of present appellant on various points and has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.S. Astkar v. CBI Bhopal 2018 (iv) M.P.J.R. S.N.
6 and has come to the conclusion that the original voice/tape recorder was not at
all required to be produced before the Court when the other evidence in respect of
demand is on record and has been found proved. It is also submitted that the
demand and the receipt of money by the present appellant has been found proved.
As far as the other co-accused Roopnarayan is concerned, he has been acquitted
on the ground of defective prosecution sanction. Therefore, the acquittal of co-
accused Roopnarayan does not affect the case of prosecution as against present
appellant. On these grounds, he opposed the application and prayed for its
rejection.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3 CRA-6653-2025
6. In case of Aasif @ Pasha (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that in fixed term sentences the suspension of sentence should be considered by
the Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. In case of Preet Pal
Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2020) 8 SCC 645 , it is
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court considering the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider prima facie merits of the
case, coupled with other factors. Such strong and compelling reasons must be
recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of CrPC.
7. The law laid down in the aforesaid cases is undoubtedly binding but
regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the particular case and if the
merit of the case permits the benefit of suspension of sentence to the appellant then
it ought to be granted. The impugned judgment was passed on 17.06.2025 and
before that the appellant remained on bail. In light of facts and circumstances
revealed from the material and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of
this Court, at this stage, the present appellant is not entitled to be given the benefit
of suspension of sentence.
8. Consequently, I.A. No.16414/2025 is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
