Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramhans Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2021

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                   - : 1 :-



    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT
                           INDORE
   (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
                      CRA No. 1755/2021
                (Ramhans Singh V/s. State of M.P.)
Date : 13.07.2021 :
      Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
     Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
Respondent.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.5332/2021, application for suspension of custodial sentence filed by the appellant.

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore in Special Session Case No.03/2015 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, on 08.03.2014, the complainant Nilesh made a written complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukat, Indore that Rakesh Jatwa and Mukesh Jatwa assaulted his maternal uncle Omprakash to which he lodged a report at Police Station Kishanganj. On 08.03.2014, near about 10:00, he received a call from his uncle Omprakash that Rakesh Jatwa has also made a complaint against him, Omprakash and Ravi. He was called at Police- Station Kishanganj. He visited the police station where he met present appellant, who was made in-charge to investigate the complaint made by Rakesh Jatwa. According to the complainant, this appellant demanded Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- each person (complainant, Omprakash and Ravi) to get the matter compromise and closed otherwise he would implicate them in SC/ST case. Since he was not willing to give bribe amount to the appellant and wanted to get him apprehended red

- : 2 :-

handed hence, he has made complaint. He was given a voice recorder and sent with the shadow witnesses to record the conversation about demand of bribe by Investigating officer . He met the complainant on 09.03.2014 and had a conversation about demand of bribe. According to the complainant, the appellant noted down the demand of Rs.30,000/- in piece of paper but latter on agreed to receive Rs. 15,000/-. The entire conversation was recorded in the voice recorder and it was handed over to Investigating Officer. After preliminary verification of demand of bribe, FIR was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, a trap was conducted, tainted money was handed over the complainant, which was recovered from the appellant. The appellant made accused in this case and after taking necessary permission from the department, prosecution was started against him. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge and convicted by the judgment dated 30.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case the demand has not been proved. The voice recording of the appellant and the complainant produced in the form of CD has been discarded by the Special Judge but on the basis of transcript of the conversation the appellant has wrongly been found proved. The appellant has falsely been implicated in this case because the complainant's uncle works in the Lokayukat Department. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in this case demand has not been proved by the prosecution agency hence he has good case in this criminal appeal . He further submits that the appellant is aged about 62 years, he is in jail since last six months and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near future.

Learned counsel for the respondent/ Lokayukta opposes the application by submitting that after considering the material produced by the prosecution and defence taken by this appellant, the appellant has rightly been convicted. The appellant demanded bribe which was handed over to him by way of trap. The trap was fully successful. There is no scope for interference in this criminal appeal . The appellant is liable to

- : 3 :-

undergo the entire sentence, however, he admits that the various criminal appeals filed in the year 2008-09 onwards are still pending in this High Court , therefore, there is no chance of early disposal of this appeal in near future.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. and perused the record.

The Apex Court in the case of Vedkumar Pandya vs. State of M.P. (SLP No.6560/2019 decided on 16.09.2019) has suspended the sentence to the appellant under the PC Act only on the ground that he is in custody since last ten months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future. The entire order is reproduced below:-

"The petitioner has been in custody since 29th November 2018. Considering the fact that the sentence is only for four years and disposal of the appeal is likely to take time, having regard to the pendency of cases, we deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner be released on bail in Special Case No.29 of 2016 dated 29th November, 2018 on conditions to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore. The special leave petitions are disposed of."

In view of above, I.A. No.5332/2021, is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, if already not deposited, with the trial Court and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal.

The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 31.01.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.

In view of above, the I.A. No.5333/2021 is also closed. List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen/-