Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2019

                                     3
   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.4531 OF 2019
             (Rajendra Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh)

Indore, Dated 31.01.2019
        Mr. Aviral Vikas Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Mr. Virendra Khadav, learned public prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

IA No.856/2019 is pending and prayer was made to ignore the defect of not filing the certified copy of trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that true copy of the impugned judgment has been filed and the defect has been cured. Learned counsel has brought the Court's attention towards the application for suspension of conviction i.e. MCRC No.4531 of 2019.

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.20811/2010 vide judgment dated 24.02.2018 and has been sentenced to undergo one year SI along with fine of Rs.2000. This judgment of conviction and sentence was appealed against and during pendency of this appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.11904/2018, an application was filed under Section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code which was allowed and permission was granted to lead defense evidence. Consequent to this order, the trial Court is again seized with the trial of the case in which the defense evidence is being recorded as per the directions of appellate Court's order dated 14.12.2018. After passing of this order, another application was filed before the appellate Court seeking suspension of conviction, however, this application was dismissed vide order- dated 12.01.2019. Against this order, petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, his services 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.4531 OF 2019 (Rajendra Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh) has been terminated and his request to reinstate him was also rejected by the Department on the ground that although his sentence has been suspended but his conviction has not been suspended. The applicant was posted as Mechanic in the Agriculture College, Indore. He has also pointed out Annexure-P/5 which is a letter written by the Vice Chancellor in which he has requested for reinstatement, but the same has been rejected on the aforesaid ground. He has also pointed out that even though citation of Navjot Singh Siddhu vs State of Punjab reported in 2007(2) SCC 574 was referred to in support, his application was rejected inappropriately. He submits that if the order of conviction is suspended then he shall be reinstated and the order of conviction which has been delivered without giving an opportunity to lead the defense evidence, as such is not sustainable at the moment and, therefore, the same be suspended.

Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has protested the application.

Considered rival contentions.

It is quite clear that the petitioner was convicted and the appellate Court has considered it appropriate to allow him to adduce the defense evidence. The defense evidence is being recorded by the trial Court pursuant to this order. Consequence of recording the defense evidence is that the petitioner may succeed ultimately and the order of conviction may be set-aside by the appellate Court. In the case of Navjot Singh Siddhu (supra), the Apex Court had made a specific direction that the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of Court to the consequence that may arise if the conviction is not stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as stated earlier has submitted that if the order of conviction is not stayed then he shall 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.4531 OF 2019 (Rajendra Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh) not be reinstated which is apparent from the letter of Vice Chancellor. It is also clear that if the Court suspends the operation of conviction that will not impinge upon the continuance of appeal which is pending. The progress in the appeal is already stalled as defense evidence is being recorded by the trial Court. Thus, I find sufficient reason to suspend the conviction of petitioner under Section 509 of IPC in these circumstances. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4531 of 2019 which is an application for suspension of order of conviction till final adjudication of the application is allowed in the ends of justice. Once the appellate Court had taken final call, this order shall cease to operate. The petitioner shall however be required to mark his presence before the appellate Court and shall observe all such conditions which were continued in the order of suspension of sentence by the appellate Court.

Let a copy of this order be sent to appellate Court as well as trial Court for perusal and compliance.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-