High Court suspended the petitioner's sentence and granted bail in a corruption case while considering the pending criminal appeal that challenges the conviction
Suspension of sentence and grant of bail on personal bond with two sureties for Rs.15,000/- each subject to surrender within three weeks and furnishing undertaking to cooperate in appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
Shantilal Jain ... Petitioner /vs/ State represented by: Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SCB/Chennai. (Crime No.R.C.No.12/S/2009) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to suspend the sentence imposed in C.c.No.5 of 2011, dated 17.10.2024 by the XI Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases (Banks and Financial Institutions), Chennai and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.
For Petitioner ... Mr. S.Uma Nachiar For Respondent .... Mr.K.Sreenivasan, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred seeking to
suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, by judgment and order
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
dated 17.10.2024 passed in C.C.No.5 of 2011 by the learned XI Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases – (Banks and Financial Institution), Chennai and to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
convicted and sentenced by the trial court as follows:
| Petitioner' s Rank |
Provision under which convicted |
Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| A3 | U/s.120 B of IPC, r/w.sec.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, r/w.467 IPC and u/s.13 (1) (d) r/w.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
To undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5000/-, in default in payment, to undergo SI for six months |
| U/s.420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w.467 (two counts) |
To undergo 3 years RI on each count of every section (8 x 3=24) along with fine of Rs.2,500/- on each count of every section ( 8 x 2500 = 20,000), in default, to undergo, 6 months of SI on each count of each section ( 8x 6 = 48 months) |
The substantive sentence of imprisonments are ordered to run concurrently.
Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A3 has filed
the above Criminal Appeal along with the instant miscellaneous petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail.
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
petitioner is innocent and he is nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and opposed to all probabilities of the case. The findings of the trial court are contrary to the evidence on record let in by the prosecution. It ought to have found the appellant/petitioner is not guilty of all the charges in view of the overwhelming evidence in favour of the appellant. The trial court regrettably erred in not appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence in the proper perspective which stood in support of the Appellant to prove his
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
innocence. It failed to consider that there is no iota of evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the alleged offence. It wrongly concluded with regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy against appellant/A3 when there was no evidence let in by the prosecution for the alleged involvement of Appellant/A3 with the rest of the accused in the alleged offence. Hence the essential ingredients for the charge under section 120B IPC gets vitiated and stands unproved. There is no evidence to elicit that the appellant used any forged documents and he had the knowledge of the fact that his documents were used by his brother/A1. For conviction u/s.120B IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate that there was a clear agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
court failed to consider pivotal Handwriting Expert Evidence (GEQD). Handwriging expert evidence plays a crucial role in cases where the authenticity of documents is in question. In this case, the Handwriting expert, Mr.Bhosale was examined as PW24 and marked his opinion and reasons as Ex.P.154 which reveals that this accused has not signed the questioned documents. Despite the submission of comprehensive and credible expert analysis, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its judgment.
petitioner/appellant that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this appeal will be finally heard and decided. He further submit that there are arguable points in this appeal and the petitioner has fair chance of success in this Criminal Appeal. Thus, he prayed for suspension of sentence till the disposal of this Criminal Appeal.
and he was released on bail by the trial court on his executing own bond and
his sentence of conviction was suspended for a period of six weeks from the
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
date of judgment till 29.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.7348 of 2024 by the trial
court.
allegations made against the Appeal have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The appellant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of appeal.
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
to the petitioner/appellant namely Shanthilal Jain, Son of Vijayraj Jain on the following conditions:
shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Appeal.
15 . With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
ordered.
22.11.2024
msr
To
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1450 of 2024
msr
Crl.M.P.No.16461 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1448 of 2024
22.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of sentence and grant of bail is appropriate pending the disposal of the pending criminal appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of OdhishaReferred¶50
Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Shantilal Jain
State represented by: Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SCB/Chennai
SHAMIM AHMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SHAMIM AHMED
Parties & counsel
