Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sultan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 June, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- CRR No.756/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
CRR NO.756/2021
Sultan Singh s/o Abhaysingh Sikligar vs. State of M.P
10.06.2021: (INDORE):
Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission. Record perused.
Admit.
With consent of parties, heard finally.
Applicant has filed the present revision being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed by the JMFC, Khargone and
judgment dated 12.02.2021 passed by IVth ASJ, West Nimar,
Khargone whereby he has been convicted u/s 14 of the M.P Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam and sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of
Rs.3000/, in default of payment of fine further RI for 3 months.
As per prosecution story vide order dated 25.02.2014, District
Magistrate Khargone passed the order u/s 9 of the MP Rajya Suraksha
Adhiniyam externing the applicant for a period of 3 months from the
territories of District Indore, Dhar, Dewas, Khandwa, Burhanpur and
Badwani. On 31.03.2014 this applicant was arrested while making
country made pistol and crime No.120/14 for the offence u/s 25-A of
the Arms Act was registered. After verification of the record, it was
found that this applicant has entered in the District during the period
of externment, hence the present case has been registered u/s 14 of the
M.P Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
After completing the investigation, Challan was filed. The
applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. In order to prove the
charges prosecution has examined 4 witnesses. In defence the
applicant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the
evidence came on record, learned Magistrate has convicted and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Thereafter he preferred criminal
appeal No.41/2019 and that too has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment.
-2- CRR No.756/2021
At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant is not assailing the impugned judgment on
merit, however, submits that the sentence of 3 years is excessive, he
remained in jail for sufficient period, hence the jail sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone by him till today.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer by submitting that the
applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for
reduction in the sentence.
At the time of commission of offence, the applicant was aged
about 50 years of age. He is facing the agony of trial since last 7-8
years. Although there is a long list of criminal cases registered against
him from the year 1985 till 2013 and on the basis of the said cases he
was externed vide order dated 25.02.2014. In the year 2011 as well he
was externed for a period of one year. Under section 14 of the Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam if any person opposes or disobeys or fails to
confirm to any direction issued under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 or 13 then
such disobedience shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine. The Court may reduce
the sentence to less than 4 months by recording special reasons. The
applicant was externed for a period of 3 months only and during this
period he entered into the territory of the prohibited district, therefore,
3 years sentence is excessive and on the higher side, hence the
sentence is reduced to one year by enhancing the fine amount from
Rs.3000/- to Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only ). Subject to deposit of
the fine amount and on completion of one year sentence, the applicant
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The revision is accordingly allowed in part. Record be sent
back.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR
C G NAIR
hk/
Date: 2021.06.15 12:19:08 +05'30'
