Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA J.
Ajay Pandvia – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal Nos. 429, 440, 441, 445 of 2013
Decided On : 03-03-2022
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 15 - CONVICTION - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - NOTICE - COURT'S DISCRETION - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF APPEAL - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for offences under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found that the Trial Court had lost sight of certain factual aspects and had adopted an unwanted lenient view in the matter, by awarding flee bite sentence.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants should be affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conviction of the appellants should be affirmed. The Court also held that it was not desirable to issue notice to the appellants for enhancement of sentence at this stage, considering the delay in disposal of the appeal and the fact that the appellants had already undergone a substantial portion of their sentence.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. AHLUWALIA J.
1. By this common judgment, Cr. Appeal No. 429 of 2013 (Ajay Pandvia vs. State), Cr. Appeal No. 440 of 2013 (Narendra Singh Bhadoria vs. State), Cr. Appeal No. 441 of 2013 (K.K. Shrivastava vs. State) and Cr. Appeal No. 445 of 2013 (R.B. Shrivastava vs. State) shall be decided.
2. All the four Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 29-5-2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 01/2010 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Name of Appellant | Conviction under Section | Sentence |
| Ajay Pandvia | 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC | 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- |
| 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- | ||
| Narendra Singh Bhadoria | 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC | 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section15 of P.C. Act. |
| 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 120-B of IPC | ||
| 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC | ||
| K.K. Shrivastava | 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC | 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- |
| R.B. Shrivastava | 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC | 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- |
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that one Sudhir Singh, resident of Tansen Nagar, Gwalior, made a complaint against Vivek Singh, the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Gwalior, that forged files of work worth Rs. 2 Crores have been prepared in the name of maintenance work of water supply. In the name of sanctioning the work and forged payment, illegal gratification in lacs has been taken. Accordingly, on the orders of Lokayukt, an enquiry was conducted by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Divisional Vigilance Committee and prima facie the allegations were found proved and accordingly, the matter was handed over to Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal. Shri Kaptan Singh Nagar was appointed as investigating officer, and looking to the large number of files, Virendra Singh Tomar and Anil Kumar Agrawal, Inspectors were also authorized to investigate.
4. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. Sanction to prosecute co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar was obtained and accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the appellants, co-accused R.N. Karaiya, Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani.
5. By order dated 6-3-2010, the Trial Court refused to take cognizance against R.N. Karaiya, K.K. Shrivastava, Narendra Singh Bhadoria, Ajay Pandvia and R.B. Shrivastava in absence of sanction for prosecution, however, took cognizance against the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani.
6. It is not out of place to mention here that the co-accused Hari Singh Khairwar and Kamal Kishore Puniyani were tried and they were acquitted by Judgment dated 29-7-2011, against which the State has filed Cr. Appeal No. 959 of 2013, which too has been heard simultaneously along with these appeals.
7. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the appellants Narendra Singh Bhadoriya, K.K. Shrivastava and R.N. Karaiya after taking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also not out of place to mention here that Ajay Pandvia had taken voluntary retirement whereas R.B. Shrivastava had stood superannuated.
8. Similarly, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted R.N. Karaiya, Executive Engineer, against which t
AI
The High Court has the power to reverse the findings of acquittal by a trial court, but it will only do so if there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived at by ....
(1) It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in prosecution case, same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. Supposition, surm....
Delayed justice is a form of denial of justice, and discipline, cooperation, and thorough preparation are necessary for timely disposal of criminal appeals. Additionally, no sanction is necessary for....
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to....
The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of cheating and conspiracy, including dishonest intent and the specific role of accused in the alleged fraud.
Investigating officer is arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order.
In cases of criminal conspiracy, better evidence than acts and statements of co-conspirators is hardly ever available.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
