Chandu @ Chandrakant vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 3637 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandu @ Chandrakant vs The State Of M.P. on 7 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                           1
                          IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                              ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 529 of 2002

                         BETWEEN:-
                         CHANDU @ CHANDRAKANT SON OF R. GAJANAN
                         KUTWAL, RESIDENT OF KHIRHANI PHATAK, KATNI,
                         POLICE STATION KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI PRATEEK TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SMT. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                               Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the

Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Appeal No.187/2001, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

2. The counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press this revision against his conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, it is submitted that the ends of justice would be met, if the jail

sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.

3. The counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

4. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material on record, since counsel for the applicant has not pressed upon the conviction of the applicant, therefore, the conviction of the applicant under Section 379 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

5. So far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place almost 22 years ago, in the considered view of this Court, no fruitful purpose is going to

be served by again sending the applicant to the jail after about 22 years of the incident. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant recorded by the trial Court under Section 379 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.

7. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.

8. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn