Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Brijmohan Rathore vs Special Police Establishment Lokayukt ... on 15 May, 2025
1 CRA-108-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 108 of 2025
(SHRI BRIJMOHAN RATHORE Vs SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT OFFICE )
Dated : 15-05-2025
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi - Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/ Lokayukta.
I.A.No.659/2025, an application for interim bail, is dismissed as not
pressed.
Heard on I.A.No.2262 of 2025 , first application under Section 430 of
BNSS for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant -
Brijmohan Rathore.
2. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 30.11.2024 passed in
Special Case No. 01/2022 by the Special Judge (Constituted under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Distt. Vidisha whereby the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 4 years RI with
fine of Rs.7,500/- for both the offences with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of facts of the case as
well as evidence on record. There was no privity of contract between the
complainant and the government. Neither any bill of the complainant was
pending nor any payment was to be made to him. Though case of the
prosecution is that main contractor had given authority to the complainant to
2 CRA-108-2025
execute the work on his behalf, but there is no privity of contract between
main contractor and complainant, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to
establish demand by the appellant, as neither there was any motive with the
appellant to demand illegal gratification nor complainant was having any
reason to pay the appellant. Inviting attention of this Court to various paras
of the statements of the witnesses, it is submitted that the complainant of the
case was not authorized by the main contractor to act as a petty contractor or
to submit the bills on behalf of him for encashment, therefore, the very basis
of the prosecutor story becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that trial
Court has failed to rely on transcription as it is not a primary evidence and
the electronic evidence through which it has been prepared has not been
proved. It is further submitted that even if the appellant had refused to give
voice sample, then also investigating officer had to move an application
before the Magistrate for that purpose, but he did not follow such procedure.
It is further submitted that a mere Adhikar Patra or sub-contract is no proof
of the fact that the complainant is a petty contractor. The appellant was on
bail during trial, but he did not misuse the liberty so granted. Amount of fine
has already been deposited by him. He has a good case on merits. The
appellant is of advance age of 67 years. There is no likelihood of hearing of
the instant appeal in near future. Hence, prayed to suspend the jail sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta opposed the
application on the ground that written agreement, Ex.P/20, is filed in this
case whereby the contractor has given sub-contractorship in favour of
3 CRA-108-2025
complainant Naresh Sharma. Other witnesses have supported the story of
prosecution substantially. The case of the prosecution against present
appellant is proved beyond doubt. Though it is revealed from the statements
of the witnesses that present appellant had already approved the bills, but he
kept the file with him waiting for fulfilling the demand of illegal
gratification. Learned trial Court has taken into consideration the entire
evidence as well as contentions of the parties and rightly concluded the
conviction of present appellant. No ground for suspension of sentence is
made out.
5. In rebuttal, it is submitted by learned counsel for present appellant that
Ex.P/20 is an agreement dated 25.09.2017 and before that the work in
question had been completed and bills etc in that regard had been submitted
in the office of present appellant. He has already given approvals on the bills
before the date of offence. The conclusion of conviction is challengeable on
various grounds.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as attending facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the
appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, I.A.No. 2262 of 2025
is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already
deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Thousand Only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail. The appellant is further
4 CRA-108-2025
directed to mark his appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 21/07/2025 and on subsequent dates given by the Registry in this regard,
till final disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per Rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ms/-
