Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh

                                                                         1
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                       CRA No. 6626 of 2021
                                                       (SANDEEP SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   Indore, Dated : 08-02-2022
                                             Shri Ashish Kanungo, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                             Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/Special Police

Establishment, Lokayukt Heard through Video Conferencing.

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Further, heard on I.A.No.28136/2021, which is first application under section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed, on behalf of the appellant - Sandeep Sharma.

The present appellant has been convicted under section 13(2)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- with six months additional imprisonment in case of default vide judgment dated 27.10.2021 passed in special sessions trial No.SC LOK/300003/2015 by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Mandsaur.

Prosecution story in brief is that appellant being Date Entry Operator/Incharge Reader to the Court of Tehsildar, Shamgarh, Distt. Mandsaur demanded an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification for preparing partition order of agricultural land belonging to complainant's father.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely roped in the offence. It is submitted that appellant was posted as Data Entry Operator and has never been given the charge of Incharge Reader tot he Court of Tehsildar, Shamgarh, Distt. Mandsaur. He was not assigned with the duty to prepare partition order which is the exclusive work of Tehsildar. Complainant in his complaint (Ex. P-1) has not Signature Not Verified SAN stated the date and time of demand alleged to be made by the appellant.

Voice recording of conversation with regard to alleged demand has not been properly proved and voice analyst report has not been proved by the expert. Hash value of memory card and CD's of voice recording has not been shown in the Court. Appellant did not accept the phenopthalin powder sprinkled currency notes from the complainant. Prosecution sanction has also not been done properly. The appellant has suffered about three months of jail sentence. The final disposal of the appeal shall take time. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays that execution of the jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and submits that appellant has committed a heinous crime having demanded Rs. 3000/- and caught red-handed for doing his official duty of preparing partition order. Such corrupt person should not be dealt with leniently. He submits that Tehsildar (PW-5) has specifically stated that appellant was doing the work of Incharge Reader prior to his joining as Tehsildar in the Tehsil Court, Shamgarh. Therefore, he has also directed him to do the work of Reader. File with regard to partition of agricultural land of complainant's father has also been seized from the possession of appellant. Recording of conversation as regards demand of money is proved by the voice analysis report for which evidence of expert is not required as per Section 293 of Cr.P.C. Acceptance of phenolphthalein powder sprinkled currency notes by the appellant is very well proved by the FSL report and other ocular evidence produced on record. Phenolphthalein was found on the hands of appellant as well as the complainant. Even otherwise, appellant has suffered jail incarceration for only 03 months out of total sentence of four years. Hence, no indulgence is warranted for release of the appellant by way of suspension of his jail sentence.

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, work assigned to the appellant at the time of commission of crime, amount said to be demanded and accepted by him, period of jail Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2022.02.10 14:49:22 IST 3 incarceration suffered by him and also that appellant neither has any criminal antecedent nor any bad service record and hearing of this appeal is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, I.A., is hereby allowed and it is directed that execution of jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and also subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15.03.2022, and on further dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.

List in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE sh Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2022.02.10 14:49:22 IST