The court emphasizes that mere filing of an appeal does not entitle an appellant to automatic suspension of sentence, particularly in corruption cases.

1. Heard on I.A.No.5300/2025,which is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The appellant has been convicted in Special Case No.7 of 2022, vide the impugned judgement dated 26.03.2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and sentenced to undergo 4 years of R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and default stipulations.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are the appellant-Manish Vijayvargiya was posted as a Reader/Assistant Grade-III in the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sailana, District -Ratlam and it is alleged that he demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant- Harivallabh Bamniya. The demand was raised on account of grant of permission for digging the tube-well, and after certain negotiation, the amount was agreed at Rs.3,000/-, and consequently, he was caught red-handed along with the amount of Rs.3,000/-, which he obtained from the complainant.

4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before this Court and it is submitted that in the present case is marked by various illegalities, including that of competence of the Investigating Officer Signature Not Verified as admittedly, the investigation has been carried out by the Officer holding the rank of Inspector only; whereas, as per the Prevention of Corruption Act , it has to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of D.S.P. It is also submitted that the appellant has also proved his enmity with the complainant, which fact has not been properly considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the transcript of the conversation between the appellant and the complainant could not have been relied upon in the absence of the original voice record, as only the memory card has been proved. There is a defect of examining only one panch witness also; despite availability of the second panch witness, who was the independent witness.

5. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to place on record any application for permission to dig the tube-well, and in the absence of this very document, the entire story of the prosecution stands demolished.

6. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohail Gohar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh {Criminal Appeal No.2058 of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5013 of 2025) decided on 17.04.2025} wherein, the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of rejecting the suspension applications of the accused persons when the final hearing of the appeals itself is not possible in the near future.

7. Counsel has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1999) 4 SCC 421; and the other decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Satyendra Signature Not Verified Kumar vs. State of M.P.; Rajeev Lochan Pandey vs. The State of M.P.

8. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court to the transcript between the appellant and the complainant to submit that from the transcript (Exb.13) it can be clearly made out that the appellant had demanded the sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and the matter was finally settled at Rs.3,000/-which was recovered from the front pocket of the appellant's pants and his hands, when washed with sodium carbonate solution, had also turned pi