Anaar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3481 MP

                                   -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

                                 BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

                      ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2022

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2586 of 2021

 Between:-
 ANAAR SINGH S/O DAULAJI RAJPUT,
 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
 VILLAGE ROOPKHEDA, TEH. SANAWAD,
 DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                           .....PETITIONER
 (BY SHRI BHARAT YADAV, ADVOCATE)

 AND

 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
 THRU. P. S. SANAWAD,
 DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                         .....RESPONDENT
 (BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SURYAVANSHI, DY G.A.)
       This Criminal Revision coming on this day, the court passed the

following:

                              O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397(1)

read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

22/09/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Jude, (Link Court), Sanawad,

District Mandleshwar in Criminal Appeal No.65/2020 affirming the

judgment judgment of conviction dated 27/10/2017 passed by Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Sanawad in Criminal Case No.300/2008, whereby

the petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and has

been sentenced to under go 02 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in

default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months RI.

The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Amit

Parashar has purchased the land from the present petitioner bearing

Patwari Halka No.39, survey No.888/13, area 0.870 hectare for a sale

consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. At the time of sale, present petitioner has

demonstrated the complainant that he is the sole owner of the whole

land. However, later on it came to the knowledge of the complaint that

out of the total 0.870 hectare land, 0.344 hectare land has already been

acquired by the Government under the project known as "Omkareshwar

Nahar Pariyojana". It is also alleged that the present petitioner has also

received compensation of the acquired land and by suppressing the

aforesaid the fact has cheated the complainant. Accordingly, a crime has

been registered against the present petitioner under Section 420 of the

IPC.

Learned trial Court after framing charges against the petitioner and

after recording evidence of witnesses have passed the impugned

judgment dated 27/10/2017 convicting the petitioner as aforesaid.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appellate Court but the

appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.65/2020 vide judgment dated

22/09/2021 in absence of the appellant as well as his counsel has

passed the judgment affirming the order passed by the trial Court on

merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment

passed by the Courts below are contrary to law, evidence and facts

available on record. Lower appellate Court has grossly erred in

dismissing the appeal in absence of the petitioner and his counsel and

therefore, the order dismissing the appeal is against the settled

preposition of law. Appellate Court has not considered the law envisaged

under Section 353(6), 385 and 387 of Cr.P.C. Before dismissing the

appeal appellate Court ought to have been given proper opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner as the dispute between the parties is of civil

nature.

In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance upon judgment delivered by the apex court in the case

Ram Naresh Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 1500,

Mohd. Sukar Ali Vs. State of Assam reported din (201) 4 SCC 729 and

the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhyeshyam S/o Sitaram

Gurjar & Anr. Vs. State of M. P. passed in Criminal Revision No.62/2021

on 01/02/2021 and his contentions that in the above cases this Court as

well as apex Court has set aside the order passed by the appellate Court

and sent back the appeal for passing appropriate orders in accordance

with law after hearing the appellant or his counsel.

In view of the above, this Court is of the consider opinion that the

judgment passed by the lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside

and proper opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties before

passing an order. In absence of a counsel or party, for whatsoever

reason, the case should not be decided against the accused. Therefore,

the judgment dated 22/09/2021 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sanawad is hereby quashed and the matter is

remanded back to the ASJ, Sanawad to decide it afresh in accordance

with law after hearing the parties.

With the aforesaid, criminal revision stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.03.11 18:29:23 +05'30'