Arvind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22034 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arvind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                              1
                            IN       THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                              ON THE 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 832 of 2013

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ARVIND S/O DINESH BHAMI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: LABOUR CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, ITAWA,
                           DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI ANSHUMAN JAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER [P-
                           1]).

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGH PS
                           TUKOGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           ( SHRI GAURAV RAWAT -DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE).
                                                    Reserved on :14.12.2023
                                                    Delivered on :21.12.2023
                                 T h is criminal revision having been heard and reserved for orders,
                           coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2013 passed by the

learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore (M.P.) in Cr.A.No.462/2013, affirming the judgment dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Indore (MP) in Criminal Case No.17868/2012 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under

Section 379 of IPC for 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.5,00/- with default stipulation.

2. 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 merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately seven months 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 2012 i.e. for a period of more than 11 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.

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

4. 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.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below have categorically found that the vehicle in question i.e. motorcycle was stolen by the petitioner and this fact has been proved by the prosecution. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of

more than 11 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner regarding enhancement of fine appears to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2012 and there is no criminal record/antecedents of the petitioner, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence of already undergone which is approximately seven months by increasing the fine amount from Rs.5,00/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 379 of IPC to be paid by the petitioner within a period one month from today. The amount of fine if already deposited shall be adjusted.

8. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court, he would suffer the jail sentence for another two months of simple imprisonment in default and in this regard, the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law, if necessary.

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

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD