HC admits Buta8217;s appeal in JMM case

The court made this observation after CBI counsel A K Dutt said the trial court, while granting bail to the convict, had power only to suspend the sentence of imprisonment under Section 398 of CrPC but not the fine.

The trial court, which had sentenced former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh for bribing four JMM MPs for three years on October 12, had suspended the operation of the judgement till November 8 while granting them bail.

The court had also imposed a fine of Rs two lakh on each of them and on failing to pay the amount they will have to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

Dutt said the CBI would like to argue on this point before the appeal was admitted. However, Buta Singh8217;s counsel Satish Tamta told the court that his client was ever ready to deposit the fine amount in the trial court when granted bail and would have no objection to that even now.

Singh, challenging his conviction, claimed that the trial court had quot;erredquot; in holding him guilty of bribing four JMM MPs and quot;failedquot; to consider that the quot;prosecution had not been able to bring any incriminating evidencequot; against him.

Rao8217;s counsel Lovkesh Sawhney said the appeal by the former prime minister might be filed next week after senior advocate R K Anand, who fought his case in the trial court, returns from abroad.

Buta Singh, in his petition, further said quot;there was neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence to draw the inference of criminal conspiracyquot; against him.

He said his conviction was entirely based on the quot;uncorroborated testimonyquot; of approver Shailendra Mahato, one of the four JMM leaders.

The trial court failed to appreciate that the approver himself was quot;unworthy of any reliancequot; because he had innumerable of times told quot;liesquot; on this issue, Singh in his petition alleged.

The approver8217;s testimony was required to pass two tests 8212; that he the approver was creditworthy and his statement was corroborated with material evidence with reference to the specific allegation against the accused, it said.

However, in this case, the prosecution evidence had failed to connect him to any of the offence and there was also no corroboration, the petition claimed.

He said neither a case under Section 120-B criminal conspiracy nor Sections 7, 12, 132 and 131D of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be made against him.