Prakashchandra Kahar (Manjhi) vs C.B.I. on 31 March, 2026

                                                                1                              CRA-1155-2016
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 1155 of 2016
                                                  (PRAKASHCHANDRA KAHAR (MANJHI) Vs C.B.I. )




                                   Shri Vaibhav Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

                                   Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1][SC]
                           [AG].

                                                             Heard on: 23.01.2026.
                                                           Delivered On: 31.03.2026

                                                                     ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.11256/2025, third application preferred under section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension/stay of conviction of the appellant/applicant.

2. The appellant/applicant has been convicted under Section 420 and 471 of IPC and sentenced for three years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 20.08.2016 passed in ST No.713/2010 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in a case arising out of Crime No.2(S)/09/SC.III, New Delhi Registered at Police Station-CBI,

S.C.III, New Delhi.

3. The appellant/applicant has been convicted for using a forge document Ex.P/21 regarding his caste as Scheduled Caste and getting a public employment in the office of Durdarshan Department, Bhopal by deceiving the employer.

4. The jail sentence of the appellant/applicant was suspended vide order dated 20.09.2016 and the appellant/applicant has preferred this 3rd

2 CRA-1155-2016

application for suspension of conviction. The appellant has referred this application as second application whereas his first application for suspension of conviction was dismissed on 28.09.2016 and 2nd application for suspension of conviction was rejected on 05.10.2016 and both the orders dated 28.09.2016 and 05.10.2016 have never been challenged. This third application is preferred on the ground that the finding of learned trial Court that the appellant/applicant is "Kahar" is without jurisdiction and the finding that appellant/applicant does not belong to "Manjhi" community in Hoshangabad District is also perverse and has been recorded ignoring the direct judgment in this regard.

5. Apart that, counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the letter

dated 29.08.2004 issued by Tribal Welfare Department to the Govt. of India wherein the State government has unequivocally mentioned that "Manjhi" are Scheduled Tribes throughout the State of M.P. To bolster his contention,he further relied upon the Report by Expert Committee Constituted by the State of M.P. as per which the Fact Finding Committee has categorically found that the castes viz. Kahar, Dhimar, Bhoi, Kevat, Mallah and Nishad are equivalent names of Manjhi Tribe and they are integral part of Manjhi Tribe. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar Verma vs. State of M.P. passed in WP No.3697/2017 (Indore Bench), Dhanraj Singh Pusam vs. State of M.P. decided on 24.07.2013 passed in WP No.15/2011 (Gwalior Bench) and Judgement passed in the case of Bhadri Prasad Burman vs. State of M.p. decided on 09.01.2024 in WP No.9723/2006 (Jabalpur Bench) . In addition, he has also relied upon

3 CRA-1155-2016 various circulars i.e. Circular Dated 18.01.2002 issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of M.P., Circular dated 22.01.2004 issued by the Tribal Welfare Department, State of M.P., Circular dated 21.03.2013 issued by General Administration Department, State of M.P., Circular dated 27.07.2017 issued by General Administration Department, State of M.P. and Circular dated 01.01.2018 issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh and submitted that as per these circulars, the authorized authorities of the State Govt. have indeed issued certificates of "Manjhi" (Scheduled Tribe) to the persons belonging to Kahar, Dheewar etc. as per the counsel for the appellant/applicant, the crux of the submissions of the appellant by relying upon these circulars is that "Kahar" community is equivalent to "Manjhi" Scheduled Tribe. It is also submitted that the conviction of the appellant for forgery is primarily and solely based on the alleged overwriting in the caste certificate issued by the competent Authority i.e. Nayab Tehsildar and actual act of forgery or fabrication on the certificate has not been established against the appellant as there is no evidence that the appellant/applicant himself carried out or was involved in making any altercations in the caste certificate. Hence, pays for stay of conviction of the appellant. In support of his arguments, he further relied on para no.13 and sub-paragraphs of Kumari Madhuri Patil And Anr. Vs. Addl. Commission and Ors; (1194) 6 SCC 241, para no.4 of Netram And Ors. vs. Koushlendra Singh And Ors: MANU/MP/2588/2013, Judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed in Dalchand And Ors. vs. State of M.P. in CRR No.1065/2012 (Jabalpur

Bench), Harvir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

4 CRA-1155-2016 MANU/MP/0272/2016, Tripti Kumar Bose vs. State of W.B; MANU/WB? 0802/2007, Abdul Karim vs. State of Mysore; (1979) 4 SCC 595, Judgment dated 11.07.2025 Ram Narang vs. Ramesh Narang; (1995) 2 SCC 513, Akash Yadav Vs. state of Uttrakhand In CRA No.44/2025 on I.A. No.2/2025 passed by High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital, Ch. Ramkrishan Rao vs. State, CBI.; 2014 SCC OnLine HYD 847, Pritpal Kaur vs. State of Punjab; MANU/PH/0240/2017, S. Malik Reddy vs. State of Maharashtra; 2008 SCC OnLIne Bom 1377, K. Subramanian V. SPE-CBI; 2011 SCC ONline Mad 913, Pravin Kumar Paras Kumar Gokhroo vs. State of Gujarat; 2009 SCC ONLine Guj 6136, Judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed in Rambaran Singh Sisodia vs. State of M.P. in CRA No.9509/2019 (Indore Bench), order dated 09.10.2023 in Mohammed Faizal vs. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep passed in SLP (CRi.) No.12819/2023 of Apex Court, Lanka Bhaskara Rao vs. State of A.P.; MANU/AP/2392/2024, Ravikant S. Patel vs. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali; (2007) 1 SCC 673, Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab; (2007) 2 SCC 574 and Rahul Gandi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi; (2024) 2 SCC

6. Heard.

7. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that the order dated 09.10.2023 in Mohammed Faizal (supra), was only an interim order and ultimately, the SLP (Cri.) No.12819/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.04.2025 and it does not extend any benefit to the appellant/accused and the facts of the case does not satisfy the criteria of Afzal Ansari vs State Of U.P. reported in 2023 INSC 1071 , the

5 CRA-1155-2016 appellant/applicant cannot succeed on the strength of other referred cases in the facts of this case and there is no change of circumstance, hence, this repeated (third) application deserved to be rejected.

8. Perused the record as well as the authorities cited by counsel for the appellant.

9. Now come to the parameters for suspension of conviction as laid down by the Apex court in case of Afzal Ansari (supra) are reproduced below:-

"55. It is no doubt true that if a judgment of conviction is outrageously in defiance of reason and logic and appears to be unsustainable without elaborate arguments being required to be advanced to satisfy the Court in that behalf, the same could afford a ground for suspending the execution of the conviction or, in a rare situation, even for staying the conviction. In the latter case too, however, the infirmities in the judgment of conviction per se would not be enough to justify a stay. The convict seeking stay is required not only to make a distinct prayer for stay but he is also obliged, in view of the long line of precedents, to plead irreversible consequences that could befall him if the stay were not granted. Such pleaded consequences would then have to be examined with a view to ascertain whether something very harmful or untoward or serious would happen, which is irreversible. At the same time, the court ought to be careful not to express a view which even directly or indirectly has an effect on the decision- making process at the time the appeal is decided. However, the present is not such a case where at this stage it can be contended with the requisite degree of conviction that the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2023 of the Trial Court, in no case, would be sustained by the High Court; hence, it is prudent to stay away from examining whether the judgment recording conviction suffers from such infirmities so as to warrant a stay of conviction. That is a matter for the High Court

6 CRA-1155-2016 to examine at the first instance and any view, for that matter even a prima facie, at this stage, could prejudice a party to the appeal. It is, therefore, left to the High Court to take a call on sustainability or the lack of it qua the impugned judgment and order."

10. The above pronouncement of law permit the suspension of conviction if:-

(i) Judgment of conviction is outrageously in defiance of reason and logic.

(ii) Appears to be unsustainable without elaborate arguments being required to be advanced to satisfy the Court in that behalf.

(iii) The matter of the appellant constitute a rare situation.

11. Now come to the judgment in this case. On perusal of the judgment and the evidence adduced before the trial court in the light of grounds raised for suspension of conviction, this court is enough careful not to express a view which even directly or indirectly have any effect on the decision-making process at the time the appeal is decided and with this abundant precaution this court is of the view that trial court has discussed the complicity of present appellant/applicant in para nos.28, 30, 31, 39 and 43 of the impugned judgment.

12. Apart that, earlier, vide order dated 05.10.2016 while dismissing the earlier application of suspension of conviction, the Court has observed as under:-

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. It is settled law that the power of suspension of conviction has to be exercised only in rare cases depending on special facts of the case and if the public servant is convicted for corruption charges, then such relief of suspension of conviction is not permissible. In the present case, the

7 CRA-1155-2016 appellant has procured the service on the basis of forged caste-certificate knowing well that he does not come within the category of Scheduled Tribe. From the facts it cannot be said that the appellant has unknowingly used the forged certificate. In such set of circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to make out a case for suspension of conviction in this case. Thus, I.A. No.8575/2016 is dismissed."

13. Accordingly, in the light of para nos.28, 30, 31, 39 and 43 of the impugned judgment, the case of the present appellant neither satisfy the criteria of rare case nor satisfy the irreparable damage criteria where the conviction cannot be compensated for any monetary loss if he is acquitted. There is no change of circumstance after rejection of earlier application vide order dated 15.10.2016. On the strength of circulars mentioned in para no.5 of this order above, the applicant/appellant does not entitled for suspension of conviction in this case. Accordingly, IA No.11256/2025 is dismissed.

List in due course.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE

amit