Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhileshwar Nath Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 CRA-11680-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11680 of 2024
(AKHILESHWAR NATH DWIVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 27-01-2025
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Eshaan Datt -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Perused the impugned judgment and record of the court below.
Appeal involves arguable points, hence, it is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 27515/2024 , which is first application on behalf
of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:
Under Section 420 of IPC - RI for five years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-.
In default of fine, further RI for six months.
Under Section 466 of IPC - RI for five years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-.
In default of fine, further RI for six months.
Under Section 468 of IPC - RI for five years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-.
In default of fine, further RI for six months.
Under Section 471 of IPC - RI for five years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-.
In default of fine, further RI for six months.
All the sentences to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant
could not have been convicted under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of IPC
2 CRA-11680-2024
because as per the material produced by the prosecution before the trial court
and the finding given thereof, indisputably it was not the case of the
prosecution and it failed to prove that the documents, which are said to have
been forged and fabricated, were prepared by the appellant himself. He
submits that at the most, the appellant could have been convicted under
Section 420 of IPC, but, still on the basis of evidence available on record, it
can be said that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the documents on
the basis of which he got appointment showing his qualification, were
forged. According to him, the appellant has successfully proved his case that
he was not aware of the fact that he had taken admission in a institute, which
was said to be an unrecognized and unregistered institute and had no
competence to issue such documents, which had been issued in favour of the
appellant. He submits that appellant has also taken the said stand in his
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, even the conviction
of the appellant under Section 420 of IPC is also not sustainable and there is
every possibility that during the course of final hearing of the appeal, the said
conviction may also be set aside.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and tried to
establish that it is a case of forgery and cheating. The appellant is a
beneficiary of the documents produced by him to get the appointment and as
such the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences as
aforesaid.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of record, prima facie I am of the opinion that the
3 CRA-11680-2024
appellant had taken a stand that he was not aware of the fact that the institute
in which he had taken admission was not recognized and not competent to
issue the said documents and on bonafide belief he submitted the documents
and was appointed and as such he has been convicted without any foundation
and these facts have to be determined at the time of final hearing of the
appeal and also considering the fact that the appellant has lost his job and is
in jail from the date of impugned judgment, IA No. 27515/2024 is allowed .
It is directed that remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a surety bond of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14.05.2025 and on such
other dates as may be fixed in this regard.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
