IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 1371 of 2025 (JAGDISH Vs SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT )

Dated : 07-05-2025 Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the appellant - Jagdish.

Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent/SPE, Lokayukt.

1. Heard on I.A.No.1696 of 2025, which is the first application for suspension of sentence of the appellant - Jagdish filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 (389 of the Cr.P.C.). The appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat - Sukheda, Tehsil Piploda, District - Ratlam, where he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for the garden of guava and lemon, and pursuant to which, on 23.07.2021 he obtained a sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- were obtained by him on 26.07.2021 in his office, where he was caught red handed, the transcript of the conversation is also available, and the learned Judge of the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take sufficient long time, and there material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution case. Hence, appellant's sentence be suspended, and he be released on bail.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ

4. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that no case for suspension of jail sentence is made out, looking to the fact that the appellant was caught red handed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that the appellant has been convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, and in such facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned Judge of the trial Court has dealt with all the objections raised by the appellant and after appreciating the entire evidence led by the parties, he has been found to be involved in the case this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant bail at this stage, as this Court is also of the considered opinion that in corruption cases, specially the case in which a person has been caught red-handed, after his conviction by the trial court, he cannot claim the suspension of jail sentence as a matter of right. In fact, there is a purpose behind introduction of s.389 of Cr.P.C. or s.430 of BNSS, which empowers to court to use its discretion while allowing or rejecting an application for suspension of sentence, and in appropriate cases the sentence is also required to be suspended.

6. In the present case, it is found that the date of incident is

23.07.2021 to 26.07.2021, but prior to his conviction, the appellant has not spent even a single day in jail and that too despite being caught red-handed in a trap laid by the Lokayukt Police. This Court is also of the considered opinion that in such cases of blatant corruption in public domain, which have been found to be proved by a court of competent jurisdiction after Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties on record, merely because the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early date, the appellant cannot claim the suspension of sentence as a matter of right no sooner he files the appeal, as that would not only also send a wrong message to the public but would also encourage such accused persons who may believe that they can always get away even if they are caught red-handed while accepting the bribe.

7. Regarding court’s duty in corruption cases, a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 is worth mentioning here. The relevant paras of the same read as under:-