Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5535 MP

-1-                                               CRR No.1860/2021

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
                         CRR NO.1860/2021
Mahendra s/o Shri Ramkrishna Agrawal
Age 58 years, occupation Karigar (Halvai(,
R/o Gurunanak Marg, Badwah,
Tahsil Badwah, district Khargone (MP)             .......Applicant.
vs.
State of M.P through police station
Badwah, Tahsil Badwah, district Khargone (MP) ....Respondent.
16.09.2021: (Indore):
      Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Smt.Mamta Shandilya, learned GA for the respondent/State.
      Heard.
      The applicant has filed the present revision under section 397 &
401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 15.03.2017 passed by learned
JMFC, Badwah, Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in Criminal Case
No.1049/2014 whereby he has been convicted under sections 353 &
332 of the IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI with fine of Rs.500/ and
1 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively and against the judgment
dated 4.8.2021 passed by IIIrd ASJ, Badwah, district Mandleshwar in
Criminal Appeal No.27/2017 whereby the appellate court has partly
allowed the appeal and while setting aside the conviction and sentence
sentence passed under section 353 IPC, convicted and sentenced him
only for the offence punishable under section 332 IPC with further
default stipulation.
      Facts

of the case in short are as under:

The complainant Shankar Sahu, who is a Constable in the police station, Badwah, lodged a report in the police station Badwah that on 24.09.2014 he along with TI Parihar were maintaining traffic arrangement on the day of Pitramoksh Amavasya and at 13.10. hrs. he found that the present applicant who was running a restaurant in the name of Agrawal restaurant was running the shop in front of his shop on the road by putting chairs, table, counter and vessels on the public road which is causing obstruction of the traffic movements. When he

-2- CRR No.1860/2021

requested the applicant to remove the obstruction on the road he caught his collar and assaulted him by kicks and fists due to which he suffered injury on his cheek and throat and started bleeding. At that time Ashok and Ikrar were present on the spot. An FIR was registered for the offence punishable under sections 283, 353 & 332 IPC. After completing the investigation, police filed the charge sheet. In trial the applicant denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution examined the witnesses in order to establish the charges against the applicant. After appreciating the evidence came on record, vide judgment dated 15.3.2017 the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under sections 353 & 332 of the IPC as stated above. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court and vide judgment dated 4.8.2021 the appeal was partly allowed and in exercise of powers under section 71 of the IPC the learned ASJ has held that the applicant is liable to be convicted only under section 332 IPC and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence under section 353 IPC and maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 332 IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed businessman and he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he is not assailing the findings recorded by the Courts below but prays for release of the applicant by reducing the sentence already undergone as no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence under section 332 IPC. The applicant is in jail since last more than 2 months and has also deposited the fine amount. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has undergone the agony of trial for the last 7 years. During trial as well as appeal he did not misuse the liberty granted by the courts, hence prays that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the applicant has not only obstructed the traffic on the road but prevented the police from discharging his duty and also assaulted him, therefore, no leniency is liable to be shown to him.

-3- CRR No.1860/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the time of commission of the offence the applicant was 53 years of age. Now he has reached the age of 59 years. He has undergone the agony of trial for 7 years. He is not a hard criminal. He is a reputed businessman and he has not misused the liberty granted by the court during trial as well as appeal. The alleged incident occurred all of a sudden out of anger, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this court, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for long. No minimum sentence prescribed under section 332 IPC, hence while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 332 IPC the the jail sentence of one year RI is reduced to three months RI by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,000/-. After undergoing the 3 months RI and on deposit of the difference of the fine amount, the applicant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter.

With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands allowed partly. C.c as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C G NAIR Date: 2021.09.17 16:50:29 hk/ +05'30'