Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5732 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024

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


                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5007 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MANISH S/O RAJMANI MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 35
                          YEARS, N EAR NAVEEN JILA JAIL, I.T.I. KULAMANDI
                          ROAD, HOSHANGABAD (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI NILESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THRU.P.S.MHOW TEH.MHOW (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                              Reserved on           :     22.02.2024
                                              Pronounced on         :     26.02.2024

                                This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for orders,

                          coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passing the following :
                                                            JUDGMENT

T his criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2015, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District-Indore (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.504/2014, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 7 years

R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and default stipulation and Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.15,00,000/- and default stipulations.

2. A s per the case of prosecution, the complainant filed a written complaint that accused offered her job in government department for her four s o n. Accused took Rs.2.5 lakhs for the job of Vaibhat in Government Department. She has deposited Rs.2.5 lakhs in the bank account of accused in lieu of depositing the above amount and accused gave an appointment letter of government department to her. Thereafter she on time to time, deposited a sum of Rs.21.5 lakhs in the account of accused, but accused gave her forged

appointment letters. Accused has also taken money from another persons for government job but those persons also did not get job in government department. On the basis of which FIR has been lodged against the appellants under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.

3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC against the accused persons and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned ASJ has convicted the appellant as mentioned in para No. 1.

4. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per report received from the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow District Indore, the appellant is in custody from 12.04.2014 i.e. 9 years, 10 months 10 days have been completed. It is further submitted that the appellant has completed his awarded incarceration in the present case, but still he is in detention in another case as reflected from the report dated 07.2.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has also fairly admitted that the

appellant is in custody from 12.04.2014.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and proper.

7. However, from the face of record, it is clear that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available o n record. Further, it is found that the prosecution case has well supported by the statements of witnesses as well as documentary evidence. The Court below has well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

8 . So far as the sentence of the appellants is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, is not required to be interfered with, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is also hereby affirmed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has completed his sentence and also default sentence. Hence, directions be issued to the jail authority that if the appellant completed his sentence alongwith default sentence, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

10. The bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged.

11. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property stands affirmed.

1 2 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and for issuance of necessary directions for releasing the appellant from jail, if he has completed his jail sentence awarded in the present

case and also not required in any other case.

13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of being rendered infructuous.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh