Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu @ Kamal Kishore vs The State Of M.P. on 10 November, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1 CRA-1318-1997
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1318 of 1997
(KALLU @ KAMAL KISHORE Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-11-2021
Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K.S. Patel, learned counsel for State/respondent.
Heard.
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the appellant against the Judgment dated 30.06.1997 passed in Special
Criminal Case No.4/93 by learned Special Judge, Raisen whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities
Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of
Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.
The case of the prosecution is that on dated 30.05.1993 the appellant was
found involved in selling illegal petrol without any valid licence.
In order to bring home the charges against appellant, the prosecution
examined as many as three witnesses, placed FIR on record and exhibited the
documents vide P/1 to P/4. The defence examined only one witness.
The learned Special Judge, Raisen found the appellant guilty for the
offence punishable under the aforesaid Section of the Essential Commodities
Act and convicted and sentenced him as above, hence this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and findings of
learned Court below are perverse and contrary both on facts and law and are
liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material
available on record and passed the judgment and findings on conjunctures
and surmises. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent/State submits
that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Court below
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has found the offence proved against the appellant which requires no
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.11.12 09:57:05 IST
2 CRA-1318-1997
interference.
After perusing the impugned judgment and statements of the witnesses as
well as the record of the trial Court, I am of the view that no error has been
committed by learned Special Judge, Raisen in recording the guilty of the
appellant, convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under the
aforesaid section of the Essential Commodities Act.
Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and
maintained in regard to the sentence.
About 28 years have been elapsed from the date of incident. It is pertinent
to mention here that during trial the appellant has already suffered the jail
sentence with effect from 30.05.1993 to 04.06.1993 (5 days). He was released
on bail by this Court on dated 07.07.1997. As he remained absent during
pendency of this appeal, hence non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued and
he was under custody with effect from 06.01.2018 to 06.02.2018 (30 days).
In all he had already suffered 35 days in confinement out of the awarded jail
sentence of four months' R.I. Fine amount has already been deposited by the
appellant.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the considered view that in the instant case, more important sentence should
be that the appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone by
him as against the aforesaid awarded sentence.
In the result upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by learned
Special Judge, I reduce the jail sentence awarded to the appellant to the
period already undergone by him. The appeal, to that extent, is partly allowed
and the impugned judgment is modified accordingly.
In this case, the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.11.12 09:57:05 IST
