Ashok Kumar Goenka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8484 MP

                             1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR

                      BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH

                   ON THE 27 OF JUNE, 2022
            CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2339 of 2014
Between:-

1.    Ashok Kumar Goenka, S/o
      Shanker Prasad Goenka, aged
      57 years, R/o Station Road,
      Katni, Madai Bagicha, Police
      Station Kotwali, Katni district
      Katni.

2.    Anand Kumar Goenka, S/o
      Shanker Prasad Goenka, aged
      about 59 years, R/o Station
      Road, Katni, Madai Bagicha
      Police Station Kotwali, Katni,
      District Katni (M.P.)

                                              ...Petitioners
(Ms. Archana Nagariya Advocate)

And

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through- P.S- Civil Lines, Satna,
District Satna (M.P.)
                                             ...Respondent

(By Shri G.P. Singh, Public Prosecutor)

...................................................................................
                                 2




      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aggrieved vide order dated 1.11.2014 passed

by II Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Appeal No.

365/2014; whereby the appeal preferred by them against their

conviction under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B,

I.P.C and sentence under Section 467 read with Section 120 B of 7-7

years R.I. with fine of Rs.50-50,000/- respectively recorded by Chief

Judicial Magistrate Satna vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2014

delivered in Criminal Case No. 3789/2007, has been returned on

account of lack of jurisdiction. Hence, this Revision.

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present petition are that in

order to procure order of supply of minerals to the Bokaro Steel Plant,

the petitioners submitted two lease agreements and seven no dues

certificates said to be executed/issued by the Departments of Mines

and Mineral, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. On inquiry some forgery was

found with regard to the name of lessee and duration of lease in the

said lease-deeds and said No Dues Certificates were found not to be

issued by the department. On a written complaint made by the

Assistant Mining Officer, Satna, the Police Station Civil Lines

registered F.I.R No. 404/2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471

I.P.C. On investigation the Police found evidence to prove the

allegations and filed the charge-sheet, which, after the trial,

culminated in the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

3. While awarding sentence, the Trial Court, i.e., the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Satna did not direct that both the sentences shall run

concurrently.

4. When the convicted persons/petitioners preferred appeal,

quoting the provisions of Sections 31 and 374, Cr.P.C, the learned

Appellate Court took a view that since there is no direction of the trial

Court of concurrent running of both the sentences; therefore, sentence

of the appellants for both the offences found proved shall be counted

to be of 14 years (7 + 7) and as per Section 374 Cr.P.C, against

sentence of more than 7 years, appeal lies before the High Court and,

therefore, Sessions Court lacks jurisdiction to try such appeal. The

learned Appellate Court then returned the appeal to be preferred

before the High Court.

5. I have heard the parties at length and have gone through the

record.

6. In view of the provisions of Sections 31 and 374 Cr.P.C and

having regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioners without a

direction to run the same concurrently the sentence has to be

considered as a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment and in such a

situation the appeal lies before the High Court. Therefore, there

appears no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and it needs

no interference by this Court. Hence, the petition sans merit and is

dismissed accordingly.

7. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to prefer an appeal

against their conviction and sentence in accordance with law.

(Virender Singh) Judge

vivek

VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI 2022.06.28 10:23:25 +05'30'