ASHOK VASUNIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order seeks to dispose of application filed under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of conviction of appellant who has been convicted vide order dated 15.03.2019 by Special Judge, Mandleshwar in Special Session Trial No.118/2016. The appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ' PC Act ') read with Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(2) of PC Act read with Section 120-B of IPC and has been sentenced to four years RI and fine of Rs.40,000/- for each offence and to suffer default imprisonment on non-payment of fine.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that complainant was seeking issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Town and Country Planning Department, District-Khargone, for diversion purposes and for issuance of such NOC, the accused and the co- accused demanded illegal gratification. A complainant was subsequently lodged by the complainant and a trap was laid on 23.04.2015 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was recovered from co-accused-Harisingh Solanki. Subsequent investigation followed and charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and the co- accused. Appellant was charged for conspiring with co- accused for demanding and accepting bribe from complainant. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as described earlier. After conviction, although substantive jail sentence of the appellant has been suspended, he has since been dismissed from the service and therefore the appellant was constrained to file the application for suspension of his conviction.

(3.) The appellant submits that if in the final outcome of appeal it is held that the appellant was not guilty of offence, then an irreparable loss would be caused on the ground of his dismissal from service as his entire retiral benefits could not be released. If the present application is allowed then it would pave way for his reinstatement as a public servant. The allowance of present application would send out a strong message countering untrue and malicious accusations against public servants who have been sincere and fearless in delivering the services to the State and public at large. It has been stated that learned Special Court has wrongly relied upon the insufficient and improbable evidence of the prosecution and hence gravely erred in convicting the appellant for the above mentioned offences. The prosecution has not been able to conclusively prove the demand and illegal gratification by the appellant and also the bribe amount showing recovery from the appellant. Learned trial Court has failed to see that NOC had been issued one day prior to the alleged acceptance of the bribe and there appears to be no logical reason of accepting the bribe at the later stage.