Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inamulhaq Siddiqui vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2019
1 CRA-1882-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1882-2017
(INAMULHAQ SIDDIQUI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-03-2019
Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 22560/2018, which is fourth application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant Inamulhaq Siddiqui.
Counsel for the appellant submits that custodial jail sentence of all other co-appellants have already been suspended by this Court. The appellant has already undergone more than 2 years of custodial sentence. Substantial part of the sentence has already been undergone by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of the Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 3404. In this case, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. under Section 304-B and 2 years R.I. under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. The appellant was in custody for more than 3 years. In considering that more than 3 years custodial period, Hon'ble Apex Court considered that appellant has undergone substantial part of the custodial jail sentence imposed upon him. In the same way, Apex Court in the case of Kamal vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 13 SCC 526, considered the half custodial sentence as substantial undergone sentence and remaining part of custodial sentence was suspended by Hon'ble Apex Court.
In this case, appellant Inamulhaq Siddiqui stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-, under Section 25(1-b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine in the sum of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation.
This is fourth application filed by the appellant under Section 389(1) of 2 CRA-1882-2017 the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence.
After perusal of the record, this fact emerges out that first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.08.2017 by this Court. After that, the appeal was admitted for final hearing. The appellant again filed a second application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and by order dated 19.01.2018, this Court dismissed the application as withdrawn. The appellant again filed an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. within a short span of time. This third application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by order dated 27.06.2018. The appellant within a short span of time against filed this fourth application on 27.12.2018. In this application, the appellant took two grounds for suspension of sentence, No.(1) he has suffered more than 2 years substantial sentence awarded against the appellant and No.(2) he is suffering from Hepatitis 'B'.
As far as Hepatitis 'B' is concerned, the jail is having sufficient facility for providing treatment and proper nursing to the convicted person and in medical college there is a separate ward created in the hospital for treatment to the convicted person. This is not the ground for suspension of sentence. No doubt that appellant has suffered more than 2 years custodial sentence but when third application was disposed of by order dated 27.06.2018, this position existed at that time also but learned brother Judge dismissed the application on merits by order dated 27.06.2018.
In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.
Consequently, this fourth application is also dismissed.
(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2019.03.26 22:30:55 -07'00'