Partly allowed

Sastri v. State Represented by

Madras HC15 Nov 2024CRL MP/15929/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment on an appellant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to infirmities in the prosecution case and pending appeal, and granted bail on security and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; appellant enlarged on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, to appear monthly.

Sastri Vs State Represented by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶3

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶4

Petitioner / appellant / A2 was convicted for the offences U/s.7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo three (3) years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo three (3) months S.I. for offence U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo three (3) years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo three (3) months S.I. for offences U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, under judgment in Special C.C.No.3 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024. Hence, the petitioner seeks suspension of sentence.

¶5

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial Court has suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner temporarily and the petitioner is in bail now. The learned counsel further submits that there are

¶6

1/4

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶9

several infirmities and inconsistencies found in the prosecution case and there are contradictions in the material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶10

3.Heard Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and there are arguable points involved in the appeal, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner and that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

¶12

5.The substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended accordingly,

¶13

and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten 2/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶16

thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶17

15.11.2024 (2/2)

¶18

Note to office : Issue order copy on 19.11.2024

¶19

3/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶22

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶23

kas

¶24

Crl.M.P.No.15929 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2024

¶25

15.11.2024 (2/2)

¶26

4/4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sastri v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sastri v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Chandrasekaran Vs State Rep by

K.Bhaskar Rao Vs State Represented by

K.Sailaja Vs State Represented by

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited Vs M/S. Universal Cargo

P.Baskaran Vs P.Malarkodi

Kanagam Vs the State Rep by Its