The Delhi High Court on Wednesday admitted for hearing former Union Minister Buta singh's appeal against his conviction in the JMM MPs’ bribery case and issued notice to CBI asking it to file a reply by November seven. Justice R S Sodhi, while admitting the appeal, however, made it clear that the court will not suspend the fine of Rs two lakh imposed on the convict by the trial court. 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 the 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 that the CBI would like to argue on this point before the appeal was admitted. However, Buta Singh'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 erred In holding him guilty of bribing four JMM MPs and failed to consider that the prosecution had not been able to bring any incriminating evidence against him. Rao's counsel Lovkesh Sawhney said that 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 that there was neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence to draw the inference of criminal conspiracy against him. He said that his conviction was entirely based on the uncorroborated testimony of approver Shailendra Mahato, one of the four JMM leaders. The trial court failed to appreciate that the approver himself was unworthy of any reliance because he had innumerable of times told lies on this issue, Singh in his petition alleged. The approver's testimony was required to pass two tests -- that he (the approver) was creditworthy and his statement was corroborated with material evidence with reference to the specific allegation against the accused. 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 that neither a case under section 120-b (criminal conspiracy), nor sections 7, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act could be made against him. Bureau Report