IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 1978 of 2022 (LAKHME SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 11-05-2022 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel with Shri Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the appellant..

Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Admit Also heard on I.A.No.4576/2022, an application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C for grant of suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the appellants. The appellant No.1 has been convicted by the ASJ, Sanavad, District Mandleshwar by order dated 15.2.2022, passed in S.T.No.9/2020, for commission of offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI, under Section 420 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 467 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 468 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 471 of IPC, has been sentenced to undergo 2 years of RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause in lieu of fine. Appellants No.2 and 3 have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 419/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI, under Section 420/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to undergo 3 years of RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 467/120-B of IPC, have been sentenced to Signature Not Verified undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- each, with default clause in lieu of SAN fine.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submit that the owner of the land in question had executed a registered power of attorney jointly (vide Exhibit P/1) in favour of Lakmay Singh, giving him right to sale the land. Thereafter they made a complaint that this power of attorney is forged document. The prosecution has examined that Sub-Registrar (PW.6) who has categorically stated in the Court that these all complainants came to the Office and got the power of attorney registered. Once the deed has been registered it cannot be termed as forged documents, hence conviction under Section 471 of IPC is bad in law under which appellant No.1 has been sentenced for 10 years. Apart from Section 467 of IPC, the appellants have been convicted for the period of 3-2 years. During trial they were on bail.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharraj & Anr. Etc. passed in Criminal Appeal No.359 - 360 of 2010 dated 11.5.2018 and in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v/s. State of Bihar & Another (2009) 8 SCC 751. With the aforesaid, it is prayed that application filed on behalf of the appellants be allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the prayer for suspension of jail sentence and prays for its rejection.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A.No.4576/2022 is allowed and it is directed that on depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- by each of the appellant's with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the Signature Not Verified SAN substantive jail sentence of the appellants shall remain suspended till the final Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV disposal of the appeal and they shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29.8.2022 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.c. as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA)

JUDGE SS/-

Signature Not Verified SAN