Harishankar Chaturvedi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of

Atrocities Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption

Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and Section 13(1)(d) readwith Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations.

Appeal heard on merits, record perused.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.1414/2020, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. as well as I.A. No.2441/2020, an application

for interim suspension.

It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that trial court erred in convicting the appellant without appreciating the evidence

on record. Demand was not proved by any prosecution witnesses including the complainant himself Tulsi Prajapati (PW-6) and other witnesses

namely Sanjay Kumar Nigam (PW-2), Shashi Mohan (PW-4) and Atul Singh (PW-10) also could not prove demand. He relied upon the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 152 and Krishan Chander Vs.

State of Delhi reported in (2016) 3 SCC 108. It is also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.K. Ramesh Kumar

Vs. State through Police Inspector, Bangalore reported in (2015) 15 SCC 629 and submitted that demand has to be proved by cogent evidence.

It is further submitted that first voice recording transcript did not fulfill the compliance of Section 65-B of Evidence Act and regarding Voice

Spectrography, he relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

reported in (2013) 2 SCC 357 [(2019) 8 SCC 1].

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the appellant is suffering from heart disease and his wife also suffering from cancer,

therefore, on these grounds, appellant deserves sympathetic consideration. It is also submitted that fine amount has already been deposited. He

already suffered sufficient jail sentence. He has good case on merits. Hearing of appeal shall take sometime.

Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584

and submitted that in application for suspension of sentence in respect of provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, superior court normally suspends

the sentence of imprisonment until final disposal of appeal because refusal thereof who renders the appeal otiose.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of Lokayukta vehemently opposed the prayer and while reading out the various paragraphs

of the impugned judgment, submitted that appellant does not deserve to be released on suspension of sentence because trial court rightly convicted him

after due appreciation of evidence. Therefore, he prayed for rejection of this application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

After considering the rival submissions as well as considering the peculiar fact situation, wherein, we are facing wrath of pandemic COVID-19,

this Court is of the considered opinion that appellants deserves to be released on bail.

Considering the fact in view of Covid19 pandemic and overall facts and circumstance of the case and looking to the submissions and undertaking

as given above, subject to deposit of fine amount, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended subject to appellants' furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before Registry of this Court on

24.11.2020 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.

Appellant shall install Arogya Setu App in his mobile immediately and would intimate his place of residence to the SHO of concerned Police

Station; where he resides. Appellant further submit the undertaking to the effect that he will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars,

orders as well as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing,

hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In view of the COVID-19, jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, preliminary medical examination of appellant shall be

undertaken by the jail doctor and on prima facie, if it is found that he is having the symptoms of COVID-19, then consequential follow up action

including the isolation/quarantine or any test if required, be ensured, otherwise appellant shall be released immediately on bail and shall be given a pass

or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.

E- copy of this order be provided to the appellant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear

that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

Appellant is directed not to move outside from India till final disposal of this appeal.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.