State Of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

2008 INSC 391

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 520-21 of 2008 with Nos. 522 of 2008, 523 of 2008, 524-27 of 2008, 528 of 2008, and 529 of 2008, decided on March 24, 2008

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate (Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocate) for the Appellant;
Ashok Srivastav and U.U Lalit, Senior Advocates (Satyajit A. Desai, Ms Anagha S. Desai, P.N Gupta, Dr. R.S Sundram, Gagan Sanghi, Mihir Y. Kanade, Porus Kotwal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Amol N. Suryawanshi, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat and A. Dashratha, Advocates) for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice P. Sathasivam
Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat

Acts

Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 31(1) of the Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondents were public servants who allegedly manipulated examination records, prepared forged documents, and conspired to cheat, resulting in incorrect results for candidates. They were tried in separate but related criminal cases, convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and, in some instances, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court directed that many of the sentences run consecutively, leading to effective prison terms of up to 12 years and 6 months.

Pending their substantive appeals, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) suspended the sentences and released each respondent on bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State of Maharashtra challenged those bail orders before the Supreme Court through the present appeals, which were heard together because they arose from a common factual matrix.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court applied the correct legal parameters under Section 389 CrPC when it suspended the respondents’ sentences and released them on bail pending appeal.
Whether the reasons given by the High Court—namely prior compliance with bail during trial, possible delay in hearing the appeal, and alleged scanty evidence against one respondent—were legally sufficient to justify grant of bail after conviction for serious economic offences.

Arguments of the Parties

State/Appellant's Arguments

The offences involved large-scale manipulation of official records, causing grave public prejudice; gravity of the crime warranted continued custody.
Several respondents faced additional corruption cases, including allegations of offering bribes to the investigating officer.
The High Court failed to record cogent reasons as mandated by Section 389 CrPC; merely noting that the accused had not misused liberty during trial is irrelevant post-conviction.
Respondent Madhukar misled the High Court by falsely stating that he had deposited the fine imposed by the trial court.

Respondents' Arguments

Parameters for cancellation of bail differ from those for initial grant; Supreme Court should be slow to interfere.
Some respondents are elderly retirees with no history of violating bail conditions.
In Madhukar’s case, the prosecution evidence comprised only two “chits,” allegedly too scanty to establish guilt, a factor the High Court correctly considered.
Release of one respondent (Shamrao) was justified on the principle of parity after co-accused were granted bail.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638	Under Section 389 CrPC, an appellate court must record reasons in writing and exercise caution; suspension of sentence should not be routine.	Relied upon to emphasise that the High Court must conduct a careful, reasoned analysis before granting post-conviction bail.
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281	Reaffirmed the need to consider gravity of offence and record specific reasons when suspending a sentence.	Cited to reinforce that the High Court overlooked essential factors such as consecutive sentences and seriousness of the offences.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court distinguished between pre-trial bail and post-conviction suspension of sentence. Citing Kishori Lal and Vasant Tukaram Pawar, the Bench underscored that Section 389 CrPC obliges an appellate court to:

Record reasons in writing;
Weigh the gravity of the offence, length of the sentence, and other relevant circumstances; and
Avoid treating suspension of sentence as routine.

Applying these principles, the Court found the High Court’s reasons inadequate. The fact that the respondents were on bail during trial “is certainly not a relevant factor” once they stand convicted. Moreover, the High Court failed to take account of:

The magnitude and organised nature of the offence;
Direction by the trial court that sentences run consecutively;
Pendency of additional corruption prosecutions against some respondents; and
Allegations that material misstatements were made to secure bail.

Because the High Court did not articulate legally sufficient reasons, its orders were declared “indefensible.” Nonetheless, rather than definitively cancelling bail, the Supreme Court opted for a remittal, allowing the High Court to reconsider the applications using the correct parameters.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed; impugned orders granting bail set aside.

The matters are remitted to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, to reconsider the respondents’ applications for suspension of sentence in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 389 CrPC and the Supreme Court’s precedents. The decision primarily affects the liberty of the individual respondents and reiterates existing requirements for reasoned orders; it does not create new substantive precedent but reinforces the procedural rigor expected when granting post-conviction bail.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

State Of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth .

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.

2. In each of these cases challenge is to the bail granted to the respondents by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Since all these appeals have a common matrix, they are taken up together.

3. On the basis of allegations that the respondents were guilty of having committed cheating, preparing forged and false documents for the purpose of cheating, using the said documents as genuine, abetment of crime, committing criminal breach of trust by forming criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention, law was set into motion.

4. They were convicted by the trial court, and have preferred appeals before the High Court and had prayed for grant of bail by suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). The High Court primarily granted bail to each of the respondents on the ground that bail was granted during trial and the liberty was not misused. Further ground indicated was that there was likelihood of delay in disposal of the appeals. In the case of respondent Madhukar it was stated that the evidence appeared to be scanty against him.

5. Questioning correctness of the order passed in each case, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was large scale of manipulation of records resulting in manipulation of results of the candidates and each of the respondents had a definite role to play.

6. Apart from the cases where they have been convicted, large number of connected cases are also pending. In the case of respondent Yadav Nathoba Konchade, two cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the PC Act”) were pending. In one case the said accused had offered bribe to the investigating officer and was caught red-handed. It was submitted that considering the gravity of the offence the sentences were directed to run consecutively in terms of Section 31(1) of the Code. It was stated that the High Court was misled in the case of respondent Madhukar who made a false statement before the High Court that he had deposited fine amount while in fact he had not done so as would be apparent from the second order. It was essentially submitted that without indicating any plausible reason, much less, the reasons contemplated under Section 389 of the Code, the bail has been granted. The seriousness of the allegations for which the respondent-accused have been already convicted has been completely lost sight of.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. It was submitted that some of them are very elderly persons and have retired from services. It is not a case where any irrelevant factor has been taken into consideration. It is pointed out on behalf of respondent Madhukar that the only link the said accused is stated to have centres around two chits which were exhibited. They did not in any way establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime. That is why in his case the High Court observed that the evidence is scanty.

8. In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that in some cases, for example, accused Shamrao Kisanrao Kamlakar the ground for releasing him was the grant of bail to the co-accused. Further, the plea taken by Madhukar is not correct inasmuch as one of the co-accused has categorically stated that pressure was exerted by accused Madhukar for doing the illegal acts.

9. The factual details involved are as follows:

Case name Case No. Date of conviction Date of bail Sentence undergone Date of supply of copy of the judgment Conviction under section Imprisonment State of Maharashtra v. Sunil Mishra Regular Criminal Case No. 372 of 2002 10-1-2007 22-2-2007 43 days No information (A) Under Section 420 read with Sections 34, 109 IPC + Section 248(ii) CrPC (A) RI for 6 years and fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to suffer RI for 3 months (B) Under Section 468 read with Section 34 IPC + Section 248(ii) CrPC (B) RI for 5 years and fine of Rs 15,000 in default to suffer RI for 2 months (C) Under Section 471 read with 34 IPC + Section 248(ii) CrPC (C) RI for 1 year and fine of Rs 5000 in default to suffer RI for 1 month (D) Under Section 120-B + Section 248(ii) IPC (D) RI for 6 months and fine of Rs 2000 in default to suffer RI for 15 days (Sentences to run consecutively.) Total imprisonment 12 years 6 months State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Yadav Regular Criminal Case No. 380 of 2002 1-3-2007 23-3-2007 22 days 4-3-2007 (A) Under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC (A) RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months

Case name Case No. Date of conviction Date of bail Sentence undergone Date of supply of copy of the judgment Conviction under section Imprisonment (B) Under Section 468 read with Section 34 IPC (B) RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 15,000 and in default to suffer RI for 1 month (C) Under Section 471 read with Section 34 IPC (C) RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs 5000 and in default to suffer RI for one month (D) Under Section 120-B read with Section 109 and Section 34 IPC (D) RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs 2000 and in default to suffer RI for 15 days (E) Under Section 409 IPC (E) RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months (Sentences to run consecutively.) Total imprisonment 12 years 6 months

Case name Case No. Date of conviction Date of bail Sentence undergone Date of supply of copy of the judgment Conviction under section Imprisonment State of Maharashtra v. Shailesh Tupkari Regular Criminal Case No. 368 of 2002 18-6-2007 30-6-2007 12 days 20-6-2007 (A) Under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC (A) RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 10,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months (B) Under Section 468 read with Section 34 IPC (B) RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs 15,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months (C) Under Section 471 read with Section 34 IPC (C) RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs 5000 and in default to suffer RI for 1 month (D) Under Section 120-B read with Section 109 and Section 34 IPC (D) RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs 2000 and in default to suffer RI for 15 days (E) Under Section 409 IPC (E) RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to suffer RI for 3 months Total imprisonment 12 years 6 months

Case name Case No. Date of conviction Date of bail Sentence undergone Date of supply of copy of the judgment Conviction under section Imprisonment State of Maharashtra v. Mahendra Goti Regular Criminal Case No. 361 of 2002 12-2-2008 Imme-diately taken in custody on 12-2-2008 and is in jail In custody 14-2-2008 (A) Under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC (A) RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 10,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months (B) Under Section 468 read with Section 34 IPC (B) RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs 15,000 and in default to suffer RI for 2 months (C) Under Section 471 read with Section 34 IPC (C) RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs 5000 and in default to suffer RI for 1 month (D) Under Section 120-B read with Section 109 and Section 34 IPC (D) RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs 2000 and in default to suffer RI for 15 days (E) Under Section 409 IPC (E) RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000 and in default to suffer RI for 3 months (Sentences to run consecutively.) Total imprisonment 12 years 6 months

Case name Case No. Date of conviction Date of bail Sentence undergone Date of supply of copy of the judgment Conviction under section Imprisonment State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ishaq Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal State of Maharashtra v. Laxmikant Zade Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal State of Maharashtra v. Atul Gudadhe Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal State of Maharashtra v. Parag Bagde Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal

10. The parameters to be observed by the High Court while dealing with an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been highlighted by this Court in many cases. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa (2004) 7 SCC 638 it was observed as follows:

“4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.”

The above position was reiterated in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 281.

11. It is true that the parameters to be applied in cases where life or death sentence is imposed, may not be applicable to other cases. But, the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed and several other similar factors need to be considered by the court. The fact that the accused was on bail during trial is certainly not a relevant factor. This position has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. The reasons indicated by the High Court for granting bail in our opinion do not satisfy the parameters. It needs to be pointed out that the trial court considering the gravity of the offence has directed the sentences to run consecutively. This aspect has also not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order in each case is indefensible and deserves to be set aside which we direct. But considering the fact that the High Court had not applied correct principles it would be proper for the High Court to reconsider the matter and for that purpose the matter is remitted to the High Court. Needless to say, the High Court shall consider all the relevant aspects and pass orders in accordance with law.

12. The appeals are allowed.

State Of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

State/Appellant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth .

Comments