The court highlighted the requirement for strong compelling reasons for suspension of sentence post-conviction and the consideration of prima facie merits of the appeal and the appellants' past antecedents.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - CRL.A. 125/2021 & CRL. A. 118/2021

Heard.

Admit.

List in due course in the category of Regular Matters as per the year of its seniority.

CRL.M.A 6842/2021 (for intervention) in CRL.A 149/2021

Dismissed as withdrawn.

CRL.M.(BAIL) 282/2021 in CRL.A. 125/2021

CRL.M.(BAIL) 358/2021 in CRL.A. 149/2021

CRL.M.(BAIL) 258/2021 in CRL.A. 118/2021

1. The present applications have been filed by the appellants under Section 389 (1) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The gist of the cases is that the FIR in the present cases was lodged on 01.03.2016 based on a source information. It showed that Neeraj Khatri, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Dy. Director (Scientist-C) in Ministry of Environment, Forest (MoEF) Govt. of India and accepted a bribe of Rs.4,13,000/- which was in form of bank draft (bearing no.557534 dated 03.07.2012) in favour of VIT University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu made at the instance of S. Vaikundarajan, (Managing Partner of M/s V.V.Minerals) from the accounts of M/s V.V.Minerals, Chennai. It is disclosed that an application for environment clearance of M/s V.V.Minerals was pending in Ministry of Environment and Forest, where Neeraj Khatri was Dy. Director. It is stated that the expenditure for the demand draft of Rs.4,15,000/-(including commission) is shown in books of account of M/s V.V.Minerals on 05.07.2012 as "donation MoEF Officer Chennai payment".

3. It is submitted by the counsels for the appellants that appellants were on bail during the entire period of about 5 years since the day of filing of the FIR/RC including the period of trial and have never misused the privilege granted to them. They further submitted that the fine which was imposed vide the order on sentence has already been paid by appellants S. Vaikundarajan and Subbulakshmi. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant Neeraj Khatri that fine will be paid today itself.

4. It is submitted by the counsels for the appellants that learned Special judge presumed the facts which were not available on records in order to convict the appellants. They further submitted that while convicting, the learned Special Judge did not deal with the specific grounds consisting issues of law and facts, which was argued before the court. It is further submitted that none of the prosecution witness claimed that they have witnessed any "demand of money" defined as per the provisions of Prevention of Corruptions Act. It is further submitted that the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that Neeraj Khatri demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.4,13,000/- as illegal gratification from S. Vaikundarajan, the Managing Partner of M/s V.V. Minerals, Chennai at the time when an application for environmental clearance of his firm was pending before the MoEF, where Neeraj Khatri was a Dy. Director. It is further submitted that it is well settled position that proper proof of demand as well as acceptance is a sine qua non to record a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

5. Learned counsels for the appellants further submitted that the impugned judgement is based on an incorrect interpretation of the legal provisions and a misreading of the evidence. It is also submitted that the conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside and prays that the sentences of the appellants be suspended till the disposal of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments in the cases of Bhagwan Rama Sinde Gosai & Ors. V. State of Gujrat (1999) 4 SCC 421 and Angana & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan (2009) 3 SCC 767.

7. On the other hand, Learned SPP appearing on behalf of CBI vehemently opposed the suspension of sentence applications and submitted that the appellants have been convicted for a serious white-collar crime, and they have not spent any time in custody.