Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
1
CRR No.3122 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
ON THE 25 OF APRIL, 2022
Criminal Revision No.3122/2021
BETWEEN:-
Amar Singh S/o Vijay Singh,
Aged about 30 Years, Occupation - Labour
R/o Maharshi Colony Itarsi
Distt. Hoshangabad (M.P.)
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through P.S. Itarsi Distt. Hoshangabad (M.P.)
...Respondent
Shri K.S. Rajput, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, Panel Lawyer for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This revision petition is directed against appellate judgment
dated 16.11.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Itarsi Distt. Hoshangabad in Cri. Appeal No.571/2016, whereby
conviction of petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
408 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by Additional Chief
Magistrate, Itarsi vide judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed in Cri.
Case No.840/2007 and consequent sentences were affirmed.
2. Vide said judgment, the petitioner has been convicted under
Section 408 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
CRR No.3122 of 2021
3. Succinctly stated facts of the case, as alleged by the
prosecution, are that on 03.07.2007, the complainant i.e.
employer of the petitioner sent him to bank to encash a cheque of
Rs.5 lacs. He encashed the cheque, received the money but didn't
hand over it to the manager of the complainant, instead
embezzled the same. The petitioner purchased a car from that
money. On a complaint made by the complainant Harjinder Singh
(PW1), the police registered a case being Crime No.351/2007
under Section 406 of IPC and recovered Rs.1.5 lacs cash and a
car worth Rs.2.1 lacs from his possession.
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
The trial Court on the basis of documents on record, framed the
charge under Section 408 of IPC against petitioner. He abjured
the guilt and pleaded false implication. After considering the
entire evidence on record, the ld. Magistrate proceeded to convict
the petitioner as indicated hereinabove. His appeal against the
impugned conviction and sentence has also been dismissed for
the reasons recorded in the judgment under challenge.
5. The petitioner has preferred this petition on several grounds
but during arguments, the ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted
that he does not want to press the petition on merits. He
submitted his arguments only on the quantum of sentence and
does not challenge the impugned conviction. His limited prayer is
that the petitioner was 20 years' old at the time of the incident.
He belongs to a very poor family. He was working in the same
company of the complainant with his father. At that young age,
on seeing such a huge money, he could not resist himself and out
of temptation of materialistic things, particularly a vehicle, he
CRR No.3122 of 2021
committed the crime. Immediately after commiting the crime, he
purchased a car which speaks in volume about the intention of a
young boy of 20 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
the first offender and has no criminal past. He has been facing
trial since last 15 years. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor
thereafter any criminal case has ever been registered against him.
His father is very old and honest employee of the complainant.
The entire money has been recovered. Rs.1.5 lacs have been
recovered in cash and a car worth Rs.2.10 lacs has also been
recovered from his possession. On these grounds, prayer is made
to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already
undergone which is about 7 months.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed
the custody period.
7. Undisputedly, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
8. Since the merits have not been challenged, the impugned
conviction is hereby affirmed.
9. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of the
offence, age of the petitioner at the time when the offence was
committed, recovery of the property allegedly embezzled and
absence of any criminal antecedent; this Courts deems it
appropriate to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.
10. On due consideration of overall facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions made by the ld. counsel for the
petitioner, the custodial sentence awarded to the petitioner by the
trial Court and upheld by the first Appellate Court is reduced to
the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the trial
Court. As informed, fine amount has already been deposited.
CRR No.3122 of 2021
11. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition is
partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.
12. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
13. The petitioner is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(Virender Singh)
JUDGE
vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.04.28
15:39:48 +05'30'
