Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghasiram Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5036 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GHASIRAM MARAVI S/O JAIPAL SINGH MARAVI, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE BEED CHINGITOLA P.S. AND TAHSIL
JAITHARI DISTT. ANUPPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANUPPUR DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. HEMLATA KSHATRIYA - PANEL LAWYER )
....................................................................................................................................
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2022 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Jugde, Anuppur, in CRA No.38/2022 whereby
the judgment dated 03.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, District Anuppur in RCT. No.100355/2016 has been affirmed.
2. Applicant has been convicted under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/- and fine of Rs.500/-
respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, applicant has preferred
an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur vide
Criminal Appeal No.38/2022 which was dismissed.
3. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant did not
press this revision on merit and not assail the finding part of judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the
applicant has already undergone 1 year 16 days of his awarded sentence and he
has not been convicted in previous case, therefore, his sentence be reduced to
the period already undergone.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand
supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that
a concurrent finding was given by both the Courts below, relating to the
conviction, dependent upon the factual position. There is no basis by which any
interference can be done in the concurrent findings of conviction. Hence,
finding force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant,
this Court finds it expedient to allow this revision petition by affirming the
conviction of the applicant by reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone. Sentences of fine shall remain the same. Upon depositing fine
amount, if not already deposited the applicant be released forthwith if not
required in any other case. In default of payment of fine amount applicant shall
suffer 15 days simple imprisonment.
6. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the sentence
awarded to the applicant for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC is
hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone.
7. In view of the aforesaid modification, instant Criminal Revision is
allowed.
8. Applicant is in custody, he be released on depositing of fine amount, if
not already deposited.
9. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions
as stipulated by this Court, as aforesaid, then the order of the court below shall
be revived and applicant shall suffer the jail sentence as already imposed by the
trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
C.C.as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
