PRADEEP TRIMBAKRAO KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by convict accused no.2 for suspension of conviction recorded against him in Special Case No.31 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 14th March 2016 by the learned Special Judge, Pune. In the alternative, it is prayed that the criminal appeal be listed for final hearing.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the instant application are thus :

(3.) Heard Shri Deshmukh, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant/accused no.2. He vehemently argued that there is no bar for suspending conviction and it can be done by demonstrating exceptional circumstances. In his submission, nonavailability of legal evidence to convict an accused amounts to an exceptional circumstance and for this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 584. In submission of the learned advocate for the applicant/accused no.2, there is no evidence of demand and verification of demand. As such, for want of evidence, accused persons ought not to have been convicted and this amounts to an exceptional circumstance warranting stay of the conviction. It is further argued that heir of the deceased owners of the shop block namely Manohar Yadav did not step into the witness box to corroborate version of the complainant as well as panch witness. Consent/authority letter allegedly issued by Manohar Yadav in favour of complainant Vijay Chavan was not finding its place with papers of investigation and the same was not before the Sanctioning Authority while granting sanction. This letter came to be produced on record while the complainant was in the witness box and the same came to be exhibited. This goes to show that the same was not a part of the record of the Housing Board, causing loss of substratum of the case of prosecution against accused persons.