Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdeesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1220 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
JAGDEESH S/O HEERALA BAGRI, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE BIDWAAL, P.S.
KANVAN, DISTT. DHAR / AT PRESENT- GOVARDHAN
PALACE, CHANDAN NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....APPLICANT
(NONE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU. P.S. G.R.P. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - G.A.)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
From perusal of the ordersheets, it is noticed that on 21.12.2023,
6.11.2023, 25.9.2023 and 24.7.2023 nobody appeared on behalf of the
applicant. Bailable warrant was issued which has been received unserved.
Revision is of the year 2017. The same is considered on merits.
2. This is revision u/S.397/401 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 24.8.2017 passed by VII ASJ, Indore in
Cr.Appeal No.159/2017 affirming the judgment of trial court whereby the
applicant has been convicted under section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo
Signing time: 2/19/2024 4:28:38
RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
3. Counsel for the State submits that accused was identified by the
complainant (PW-1) and Harishchandra (PW-2). Apart from the statement of
complainant, there is a recovery of Rs.49,500/- and one mobile from the
applicant. The mobile has also been identified by the complainant. Both the
courts after appreciating the evidence, held that prosecution has proved its
case. Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find any case for
interference so far as conviction under section 379 IPC is concerned.
4. From perusal of record, it appears that judgment was passed by the
appellate court on 24.8.2017 and jail sentence in revision was suspended on
9.10.2017, thus the applicant has remained in jail for about one and half months.
Considering the same and the fact that incident has taken place in the year 2012,
the applicant has already undergone jail sentence of one and half months, no
purpose would be served in sending the applicant in jail after such long period.
Therefore, the jail sentence of the applicant may be sentenced to the period
already undergone.
5.Therefore, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction is
maintained. The jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him subject to deposit of fine amount within 3 months from
today, if not already deposited. If the fine amount has not been deposited, the
trial court shall take steps to recover the fine amount. In default of payment of
fine amount within 3 months from today, the applicant shall undergo jail
sentence of one month.
Signing time: 2/19/2024 4:28:38
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signing time: 2/19/2024 4:28:38
