Himmat Shriram Maghade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3145 Bom

                                                                                 apeal123.16
                                               1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           CRIMINAL       APPEAL   No. 123 OF 2016




                                                       
    Himmat Shriram Maghade,
    aged about 40 years,
    r/o Ward No. 5, Arni, Distt. Yavatmal.




                                                      
    At present r/o Wazzarkhed,
    District Amravati.                                     .... APPELLANT.




                                             
                                 VERSUS

    The State of Maharashtra      
    through P.S.O. P.S. Frazerpura,
    Amravati.                                               ....  RESPONDENT.
                                 
    Shri P.V. Navlani Advocate for the Appellant.
    Smt. M. Deshmukh, APP, for the respondent.
                                        .....
      


                                          CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 23.06.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is not having any intention to cause wrongful gain or

wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the finding recorded by

the trial Judge that the appellant has committed an offence

punishable under Section 4 read Section 3 of the Prize Chits and

Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short the

apeal123.16

Prize Chits Act) and also under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code

is illegal.

3. Learned APP supports the impugned judgment and

order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. On going through the impugned judgment and

order and record and proceedings, I find that the learned APP is

right when she submits that there is a ample evidence on record

which clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt the intention

of the appellant, which was to run a scheme in violation of the

prohibition of Section 3 of the Prize Chits Act. The scheme that

was floated was to the effect that various persons were

introduced to the membership of the scheme on their paying

membership fee of Rs.100/- and further paying monthly

contribution of Rs.1,000/- for a fixed period of time. In view of

this, the members were promised some prize which were to be

announced by drawing a lot and the non-winner members were

promised of getting Rs.12,000/- after a year with a bonus of

Rs.1,000/-. In the case of weekly scheme, payment of Rs.6,000/-

after the weekly payment at the rate of Rs.100/- for 52 weeks

was promised. All the members of this scheme known as "Maitry

Collection" have consistently deposed about this fact. They have

also deposed about this appellant's role who convinced them

apeal123.16

about the said scheme in joining the scheme. There is also

evidence to show that the amount was misused. These acts of

the appellant were in violation of Section 3 of the Prize Chits Act

and constituted an offence punishable under Section 4 of that Act

as well as Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I am of

the view that the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant

for these offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary or against the well

settled principles of law.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has

pointed out to me a patent illegality committed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge in imposing consecutive punishment for

both the offences upon the appellant. He submits that offences

under Section 4 of the Prize Chits Act and under Section 406 of

Indian Penal Code were committed during the course of single

transaction and, therefore, as per the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @

Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs,

Ahmedabad & ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2143, the

sentences awarded could not have been directed to run

consecutively.

6. It is well settled that when the offences are

apeal123.16

committed in a single transaction, the sentences awarded for

these offences should be directed to run concurrently. In the

instant case, both the offences for which the sentences are

handed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without any

manner of doubt, have been committed in a single transaction,

i.e. to say, in the course of floating a scheme "Maitry Collection"

and operating the same. Therefore, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge ought to have proceeded to make the sentences

awarded by him run concurrently by following the settled

principles of law. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of

learned counsel for the appellant and the operative portion of the

impugned judgment and order needs to be modified so as to

bring it in line with the settled principles of law. To this extent

only, this appeal can be allowed. In the result, following order is

passed.

7. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction

recorded for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Prize

Chits Act and under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and the

sentences of imprisonment and fine respectively imposed for

these offences are hereby maintained. However, the direction

that these sentences shall run consecutively is hereby quashed

and set aside. It is substituted by the direction that the said

apeal123.16

sentences shall run concurrently. Remaining portion of the

operative part of the judgment and order is also maintained.

Appeal is disposed of in these terms.

JUDGE

/TA/