Kalu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16920 MP

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                              ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 928 of 2011

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KALU SINGH S/O HEMRAJ BHEEL, AGED ABOUT 35
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:       AGRICULTRIST
                           GRAM.MALWASI     THA.RAOTI    DISTT.RATLAM
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI VIMAL KUMAR GANGWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           THE   STATE  OF   MADHYA    PRADESH     GOVT.
                           THRU.THA.PRABHARI ARCHI KENDRA R.P.F. RATLAM
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( MS. ARSHA THAKUR, LEARNED DY. G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
                           A.G/STATE)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2011 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, district Ratlam in Cr.A.No.11/2011 affirming the judgment dated 20.12.2010 passed by learned Special Railway Magistrate, Ratlam in Criminal Case no. 3628/2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 3 of Railway Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 21-12-2022 19:10:58

Property Unlawful Possession Act, 1966, and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulations.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and not assails the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone 37 days in jail incarceration, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as the petitioner already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2001 i.e.for a period of 21 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly

allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. Hence, finding force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2001, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner, however, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by increasing the fine amount.

Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount to Rs.10,000/- to be paid within a period of two months from today. Since the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 21-12-2022 19:10:58

conditions as stipulated by this Court, as aforesaid, then the order of the appellate Court shall be revived and petitioner shall suffer the jail sentence as already imposed by the appellate Court.

A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

C.C.as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE vatan

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 21-12-2022 19:10:58