D.K. Singh @ Ramdas Singh @ ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7140 MP

                                           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                          ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3710 OF 2021

       Between:-

       D.K. SINGH @ RAMDAS SINGH @
       DHARMENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI
       FERAN SINGH GURJAR, AGED 40
       YEARS, R/O GRAM ARRUSI,
       POLICE    STATION  SIHONIYA,
       DISTRICT MORENA.
                                                                ........APPELLANT

       (BY SHRI AJMER SINGH YADAV AND SHRI SANTOSH
       SINGH KIRAR - ADVOCATES)

       AND

       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH     POLICE   STATION
       GOLA KA MANDIR, DISTRICT
       GWALIOR.

                                                             ........RESPONDENT

        (BY SHRI A.K. NIRANKARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                   JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the judgment and sentence dated 16/4/2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No.400342/2013, by which the appellant has been convicted for the following offences:-

 Conviction U/s         Sentence      Fine            Default (in lieu of
                                                      fine)
 420 of IPC             2 years RI    2,000/-         2 months SI
 406 of IPC             1 year RI     1,000/-         1 months SI

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences awarded by the Trial Court, but his only grievance is that the sentences have been directed to run consecutively. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of Section 31 of Cr.P.C., sentences may be directed to run concurrently.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. According to the prosecution case, the complainant was having a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.HR 21 C0067. He had a talk with the appellant for sale of the same and accordingly, the appellant transferred an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant and assured that the remaining amount of Rs.55,000/- shall be paid at a later stage and only thereafter, he would collect the documents for transfer. The actual possession of the car was delivered to the appellant alongwith photocopies of the documents. Thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant demanded the original documents also, which were sent by the complainant through speed post. When the complainant asked the appellant to pay the remaining amount, then he continuously avoided and said that he is going to Australia and would get the vehicle transferred in his name after his arrival. The appellant neither transferred the vehicle in his name nor paid the remaining consideration amount of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant also

insisted that in case if the appellant is not interested in the vehicle, then he can return the car and can take back his advance money and he should also give NOC that during the period of two years he had not misused the car. It was alleged that thereafter, he could not succeed in contacting the appellant, as he was changing his mobile number and address frequently. It is the prosecution case that the appellant had misused the car by putting a red light on it as well as he used to project him as an IAS officer and visited various places and enjoyed the VIP treatment and made an attempt to get the vehicle transferred in his name and only on the objection raised by the complainant, his application was rejected.

5. Under these circumstances as well as considering the allegations made against the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentences awarded to the appellant can be made concurrently and accordingly, it is directed that the sentences awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court shall not run consecutively, but they shall run concurrently.

6. With aforesaid modifications, judgment and sentence dated 16/4/2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No.400342/2013 is hereby affirmed.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be immediately provided to the appellant free of costs.

8. The record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately alongwith a copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance.

9. The appeal partially succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.05.12 13:52:26 +05'30'