Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mehmood Mansuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5793 of 2022
(MEHMOOD MANSURI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-11-2022
Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor with Ms. Priyanka Raj
Panwar, Advocate for the respondent - State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.9455/2022, which is first application under filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of jail sentence as well as fine amount and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant -Mehmood Mansuri S/o Ibrahim Mansuri.
Appellant has been convicted vide judgement dated 23.06.2022 passed in Special Case No.EOW/300001/2011 by the Special Judge under the Prevention o f Corruption Act, Mandsaur (M.P.) under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 04 years RI with fine of Rs.50,00,000/- with default stipulation of 01 year RI.
Prosecution story in brief is that appellant being Salesman, Additional Accountant, Clerk and Chief Executive Officer in the Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Mandsaur earned and acquired movable and immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,05,15,023/- during the check period 1991-2002, which is more than 598.21% of his income from known sources.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was working in the Cooperative Society and was not a public servant as per the provisions of Section 2(1) of the P.C. Act. For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 11/3/2022 6:13:17 PM 2 he was public servant, then the prosecution sanction has also not been obtained for prosecuting him as per provisions of Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. Appellant and his wife both are income tax payers and each and every movable and immovable property said to be seized from the possession of the appellant were shown in their income tax returns. Cash amount of Rs.64,33,580/- was received by selling agricultural land, while gold biscuits and ornaments amounting to Rs.11,92,261/- were kept by Champalal in the house of the appellant for security. Appellant has been convicted only because he did not inform his department about the earnings received from agricultural land and other sources, which is totally illegal. Learned Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering the documents relating to income tax return and other documents produced by the appellant in his defence. Appellant was enlarged on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is an old person aged about 67 years and suffering from various ailments. He is in jail since 23.06.2022 and conclusion of appeal will take considerable long time as there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future. In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and prays that execution of jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended as well as the fine amount imposed upon him be suspended and he be enlarged on bail. In support of his submissions, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgements delivered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1992 (4) SCC 45 and K. C. Sareen vs. CBI, Chandigarh 2001 (6) SCC 584.
P e r contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application and submits that as stated by learned Trial Court in paras-30 and 31 of its impugned judgement, appellant very well comes under the purview of a Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 11/3/2022 6:13:17 PM 3 public servant. During investigation, he was terminated from his services therefore, prosecution sanction was not required in the matter. It is apparent from the record that at the time of search, cash amount of Rs.64,33,580/- alongwith gold biscuits and other jewelleries amounting to Rs.11,88,536/- were seized from appellant's house. Appellant neither informed his department nor in his income tax return about the aforesaid properties apart from other properties therefore, as held by learned Trial Court in para-210 of its judgement referring to the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. J. Jayalalitha & others, 2017 (6) SCC 263, the income tax assessment proceedings are not relevant for proving the charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Appellant has totally failed to rebut the statutory presumption raised against him therefore, learned Trial Cort has not committed any error in convicting the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, looking to the high percentage of disproportionate property, no indulgence is warranted for release of the appellant by way of suspension of his sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. Perusal of the record reveals that apart from cash amount of Rs.64,33,580/- and jewelleries amounting to Rs.11,88,536/-, other movable and immovable properties were seized from the possession of the appellant. Admittedly, appellant did not inform his department about the aforesaid acquired properties therefore, only by submitting income tax assessment documents, it cannot be said that he has rebutted the statutory presumption. But as he was not arrested during investigation or trial therefore, looking to his age and also the fact that properties seized from his possession has been confiscated so also the fact that there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 11/3/2022 6:13:17 PM 4 in near future, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of K. C. Sareen (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, I.A. No.9455/2022 is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution of sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing separate surety of fine amount of Rs.50,00,000/-and also upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court o n 12.12.2022, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 11/3/2022 6:13:17 PM