Munni Lal Singh @ M.L. Singh vs State Of U.P. Thur. C.B.I.
2022 Latest Caselaw 20022 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 171 of 2016
 

 
Appellant :- Munni Lal Singh @ M.L. Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thur. C.B.I.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Pandey,Sudhir Kumar Agrawal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Bireshwar Nath,Shiv P. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard S/Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ?CBI?).

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.2.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No.1, Additional Session Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.18000016 of 2005, State Vs. Munni Lal Singh alias M.L. Singh, arising out of RC No.11(A)/04, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and, in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Under Section 471 IPC, accused-appellant has convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Further, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, accused-appellant has convicted and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and, in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently except for the fine. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently except for the fine.

3. The accused-appellant was granted bail by this Court pending appeal vie order dated 11.2.2016. However, realization of fine was not stayed. Subsequently, an application came to be filed with prayer to suspended the fine and the entire sentence was suspended vide order dated 26.5.2016 read with order dated 4.7.2016.

4. Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not want to argue the appeal on merit and the conviction may be upheld. However, looking at the age of the accused-appellant, who is more than 73-74 years of age and his medical condition as he is unable to walk and he is mentally unstable as he suffers from Dementia and in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 3 SCC 485, this Court may reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant and enhance the fine as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the CBI has no objection for dismissing the appeal so far the convection is concerned, but so far the reducing the sentence to less than the minimum period prescribed, he submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra) is not applicable in each case. However, he is not in a position to deny the fact that the accused-appellant is more than 74 years of age and he is suffering from various ailments, including the mental disability, and he is suffering from Dementia.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra) has held that even the minimum sentence can be reduced by the appellate court after considering the facts, such as age, long pendency of the criminal case in the court, illness and infirmity of the accused-appellant etc. In paragraphs 8 to 13 of the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court held as under:-

"8. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by CBI in 1984. The matter came before the Sessions Court only in 1994. The Sessions Court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 282 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 426] , the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was under Section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict.

10. In Sharvan Kumarv.State of U.P.[(1985) 3 SCC 658 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 437] , the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

11. In Ajab v. State of Maharashtra [1989 Supp (1) SCC 601 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 602] also, this Court had an occasion to examine the similar situation. The offence was committed in 1972 and this Court delivered the judgment in 1989. The conviction was under Section 224 read with Section 395 IPC. In that case also "passage of time was reckoned as a factor for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone". This Court in that case, while reducing the substantive sentence, increased the fine holding that the same would meet the ends of justice.

12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. However, an amount of Rs 50,000 is imposed as fine. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three months and, if not, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On payment of fine, his bail bond will stand cancelled."

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf the learned counsel for the parties and also taking note of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra), so far the appeal in respect of conviction under Sections 409 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the appeal is dismissed. However, in respect of sentence, considering the mental and physical disability of the accused-appellant and his advanced stage i.e. he being 73-74 years of age and, also taking into account that the offence was allegedly committed in the year 2004, for which judgement and conviction came to be passed in the year 2016 and now we are in the fag end of 2022, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant. However, the fine imposed by the learned trial court is increased to fine of Rs.2,30,000/-.

8. At this stage, Sri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has tendered a fine deposit slip of Rs.80,000/- dated 19.2.2016 deposited by the accused-appellant as initially the fine was not stayed by this Court vide order dated 11.2.2016.

9. In view of the aforesaid, accused-appellant is directed to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) within a period of one month from today. In case the accused-appellant deposits the fine as directed above, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged. In the event, the accused-appellant does not deposit the fine of Rs.1,50,000/- within the period prescribed, he shall undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

8. Subject to above noted terms, the appeal is partly allowed.

9. Let lower court record be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.

Order Date :- 6.12.2022

Rao/-