Mahaveer Singh Aasiwal S/O Bhola Ram Khatik vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mahaveer Singh Aasiwal, formerly the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner GST, Anti Evasion) at Bharatpur, is an appellant in a criminal appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated July 26, 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018. The conviction stemmed from Session Case No. 3/2020. The petitioner filed an application for suspension of sentence pending his appeal. He was on bail during the trial and was taken into custody upon conviction. The alleged recovery was not from his direct possession, and conscious possession was not established. Furthermore, there was no demand or verification of demand noted by the trial court.
Held
The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, found that the appellant had good chances of succeeding in the appeal. The reasoning for this view appears to be based on the submissions made by the appellant's counsel regarding the complainant turning hostile, the alleged lack of conscious possession of the recovered items, and the absence of a proven demand and verification. The Court considered that the appellant was on bail during the trial and had been enlarged on bail previously. Therefore, the Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence, suspending the sentence of the appellant until the disposal of the appeal. The appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each. Conditions for bail included not indulging in criminal activity, appearing before the trial court annually, and informing the courts and counsel of any change in residence or surety's address.
Key Issues
1. Whether the conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018, is sustainable when the complainant has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case, and the conviction is based on surmises and conjectures? 2. Whether the conviction is valid when the alleged recovery was not from the appellant's possession, and conscious possession was not established? 3. Whether the conviction is justified in the absence of any demand and verification of demand? Petitioner's Arguments: The complainant has turned hostile, weakening the prosecution's case. The conviction relies on surmises and conjectures. The alleged recovery was not from the appellant's possession, and conscious possession was not established. There was no demand and verification of demand. The appellant was on bail during the trial and has good chances of success in the appeal. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions raised by the appellant.
Sections Cited
Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 21/08/2024
Instant SOS application is preferred by appellant-accused in pending appeal admitted on 05.08.2024 and filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2024 in Session Case No. 3/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, PC Act Cases, Bharatpur, whereby appellant-accused was convicted under Section 7 of PC (Amended) Act, 2018. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution but the Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused only on basis
[2024:RJ-JP:35277] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1267/2024] of surmises and conjectures. He also submitted that the recovery was not effected from possession of appellant rather alleged recovery was from tabletop and conscious possession of appellant was not established. He also submitted that there was no demand and verification of demand but the Trial Court still convicted the present appellant. He further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has good chances to succeed in the instant case on the ground raised by him.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
The appellant-accused was on bail during trial and after conviction and sentence petitioner was taken in custody on 26.07.2024. 6. Having considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellant accused-Mahaveer Singh Aasiwal S/o Bhola Ram Khatik, is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 03.12.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
After release of appellant on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found
[2024:RJ-JP:35277] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1267/2024] that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled.
That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
Misc. Application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /65
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.