Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Vijayvargiya vs State Of M.P. on 5 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
Cr.A. No.3832 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3832 of 2025
(MANISH VIJAYVARGIYA Vs STATE OF M.P. )
Dated: 05.05.2025
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent/SPE, Lo-
kayukt.
1. Heard on I.A.No.5300/2025,which is an application for suspension
of sentence on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The appellant has been convicted in Special Case No.7 of 2022,
vide the impugned judgement dated 26.03.2025, under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 4 years
of R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and default stipulations.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are the appellant-Manish
Vijayvargiya was posted as a Reader/Assistant Grade-III in the office
of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sailana, District -Ratlam and it is
alleged that he demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant-
Harivallabh Bamniya. The demand was raised on account of grant of
permission for digging the tube-well, and after certain negotiation,
the amount was agreed at Rs.3,000/-, and consequently, he was
caught red-handed along with the amount of Rs.3,000/-, which he
obtained from the complainant.
4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court
and it is submitted that in the present case is marked by various
illegalities, including that of competence of the Investigating Officer
as admittedly, the investigation has been carried out by the Officer
holding the rank of Inspector only; whereas, as per the Prevention of
Corruption Act, it has to be conducted by an Officer not below the
rank of D.S.P. It is also submitted that the appellant has also proved
his enmity with the complainant, which fact has not been properly
considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the transcript
of the conversation between the appellant and the complainant could
not have been relied upon in the absence of the original voice record,
as only the memory card has been proved. There is a defect of
examining only one panch witness also; despite availability of the
second panch witness, who was the independent witness.
5. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the
prosecution has failed to place on record any application for
permission to dig the tube-well, and in the absence of this very
document, the entire story of the prosecution stands demolished.
6. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a recent decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohail Gohar vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh {Criminal Appeal No.2058 of 2025 (arising out of
S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5013 of 2025) decided on 17.04.2025}
wherein, the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of rejecting
the suspension applications of the accused persons when the final
hearing of the appeals itself is not possible in the near future.
7. Counsel has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and
others vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1999) 4 SCC 421; and the
other decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Satyendra
Kumar vs. State of M.P.; Rajeev Lochan Pandey vs. The State of
M.P.
8. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has opposed the
prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court to the transcript
between the appellant and the complainant to submit that from the
transcript (Exb.13) it can be clearly made out that the appellant had
demanded the sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and the matter
was finally settled at Rs.3,000/-which was recovered from the front
pocket of the appellant's pants and his hands, when washed with
sodium carbonate solution, had also turned pink.
9. Counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the various paragraphs of the impugned judgement to submit
that the learned Judge of the trial Court has dealt with all the
objections raised by the appellant in this appeal.
10. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the
record, it is found that in his defence statement under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C., the appellant has denied the recovery of Rs.3,000/- from
his possession, and has even denied the wearing of the pants, from
which the tainted currency notes were recovered.
11. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned
Judge of the trial Court has dealt with all the objections raised by the
appellant and after appreciating the entire evidence led by the parties,
he has been found to be involved in the case this Court does not find
it to be a fit case to grant bail at this stage, as this Court is also of the
considered opinion that in corruption cases, specially the case in
which a person has been caught red-handed, after his conviction by
the trial court, he cannot claim the suspension of jail sentence as a
matter of right. In fact, there is a purpose behind introduction of
s.389 of Cr.P.C. or s.430 of BNSS, which empowers to court to use
its discretion while allowing or rejecting an application for
suspension of sentence, and in appropriate cases the sentence is also
required to be suspended.
12. In the present case, it is found that the date of incident is
01.01.2019, but prior to his conviction, the appellant has not spent
even a single day in jail and that too despite being caught red-handed
in a trap laid by the Lokayukt Police. This Court is also of the
considered opinion that in such cases of blatant corruption in public
domain, which have been found to be proved by a court of competent
jurisdiction after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties on
record, merely because the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early
date, the appellant cannot claim the suspension of sentence as a
matter of right no sooner he files the appeal, as that would not only
also send a wrong message to the public but would also encourage
such accused persons who may believe that they can always get away
even if they are caught red-handed while accepting the bribe.
13. Regarding court's duty in corruption cases, a recent decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of
Punjab reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 is worth mentioning
here. The relevant paras of the same read as under:-
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude
of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth,
that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly
placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is
asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our
society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a
developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the
hired assassins to its law and order,then that is from the corrupt elements
at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.
27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held
that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and
quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v.
State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:
"16......„26. It can be stated without any fear of
contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for
corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress,
accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons
the glory of the institutions,paralyses the economic health of a
country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of
governance."
28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64,this
Court held as under:--
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave
danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also
threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the
Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular
democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where
corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human
rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty,
equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular
vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti
corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a
fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption...."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. This court is of the considered opinion that if the appellant's
contention is accepted, then in each and every case, be it a case
falling under the P.C. Act, or even a case u/s.302 of IPC, the
suspension of sentence should be granted to the appellants no sooner
the appeals are filed by them, because in each and every case, the
final disposal of the appeal is likely to take sufficiently long time
looking to the scarcity of the judges and the long list of pending
appeals.
15. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Sohail Gohar(supra) is concerned, indeed the Supreme Court
has also reflected upon the huge pendency of the appeals against
conviction in the High Court, but in that case, the appellant had
already undergone sentence of more nine months; whereas his
application for suspension of sentence was rejected by the High
Court directing that he may renew prayer after undergoing half of the
jail sentence, including the remission, whereas, in the present case
the appellant has hardly suffered one month and twelve days.
16. So far as the other decisions cited by the counsel for the
appellant, the same are of no avail to the appellant at this stage.
17. In such circumstances, at this stage, this Court does not find it
to be a fit case to grant suspension of sentence.
18. Accordingly, I.A. No. I.A.No.5300/2025 stands dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
