Bhagatram vs Shivnarayan
2023 Latest Caselaw 11512 MP

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                  ON THE 24 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 545 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BHAGATRAM S/O BHONIRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
                           45   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
                           DHAMNIYA DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    SHIVNARAYAN S/O BALURAM PATIDAR, AGED
                                 ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 GRAM GADAVDA TEH. JAWAD/ NEEMUCH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF M.P. THR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
                                 NEEMUCH NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                           (BY SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the

                           following:
                                                               ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Cr.A.No. 12/2013 affirming the judgment dated 01.01.2013 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Neemuch in Criminal Case No. 1308/2008, whereby the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 25-07-2023 15:17:40

petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo 06 months R.I. with fine/compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- with default stipulations.

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 merit and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner is ready to deposit the full compensation amount, if the petitioner is given two months to deposit the same and prays that on the aforesaid undertaking his sentence part may be modified and reduced only upto the

compensation amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as the petitioner already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2008 i.e.for a period of 15 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the compensation only.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision. However, counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.62,000/- only.

4. Having considered the submissions of petitioner 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. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 25-07-2023 15:17:40

both the Courts below.

6. So far as the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of almost 15 years, the submissions has been made by the petitioner regarding imposing only the compensation appears to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2008 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, however, sentenced part of six months R.I. is set aside and now, the petitioner is directed to deposit/pay the total remaining amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of this order. The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to handover the amount to the complainant, if any, on being filing appropriate application.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed on the aforesaid terms, however, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as stipulated by this Court, as aforesaid, then the order of the appellate Court shall be revived and petitioner shall suffer the jail sentence as already imposed by the appellate Court.

8. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance alongwith the record immediately.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 25-07-2023 15:17:40