Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kedar Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 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. 15666 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KEDAR NAGAR S/O SHRI RAMLAL NAGAR, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, 41-B, MITRA BANDHU NAGAR,
KANADIA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VISHWAMBHAR VARANGAONKAR, ADVOCATE).
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BERCHHA,
DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI H.S.RATHORE , GOVT. ADVOCATE).
Reserved on :21.02.2024
Pronounced on : ....02.2024
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgments,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by
the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2023, passed by the
learned Special Judge of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shajapur in
ST No. 400098/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence
under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced for 05 years R.I. with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and under Section 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepako Ka Sanrakshan
Adhiniyam and sentenced for 05 years S.I. with fine of Rs.50,000/-, with default
stipulations.
2 . As per the prosecution story, on 19.02.2016, a complaint has been
lodged by the complainant Dilip. Choudhary that Mahesh Nagar, Sandeep
Patidar, Mukesh Patidar who are the agent of B.N.P. Insurance and Assurance
Services India Ltd. came to his Village Rathbhanwar and as per plan of
company, by depositing a daily amount worth Rs. 100/- for a period of 5 years
would become double the amount. So he has invested the amount in the name
of his daughter and other members of his family alongwith other investors and
whose receipts were issued by Raghvendra, the Chairman of the company. The
company was closed in the year 2014 and no amount was paid by the company
to the investors. Hence, a complaint was lodged before the concerning police
station.
3. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not press
this appeal on merits and has not assailed the finding part of judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the
appellant has already undergone 4 years and 6 months in jail incarceration, his
sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted
that this appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant be
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount or as the
Court deems fit.
4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record,
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and
proper.
6 . However, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in
appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the
prosecution case has been well supported by the testimony of witnesses
as well as complainant. The learned 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.
7. So far as, the sentence of the appellant is concerned, in view of the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has
completed more than 4 years and 6 months out of five years of his jail sentence,
this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this appeal by affirming the
conviction of the appellant by reducing the sentence to the extent of already
undergone period.
8.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and looking to the
fact that there is only one year punishment is prescribed under Section 6(1) of
M.P. Nikshepako K a Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, the sentences awarded to the
appellant, under Sections 420 of IPC and 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepako Ka
Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, are hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone
(4 years, 6 months) out of five years, subject to deposit the fine amount as
awarded by learned trial Court. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as
the compensation amount paid to the complainant, if any, shall be adjusted. The
bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged after depositing of the fine
amount. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer two
months of simple imprisonment in default.
9. Appellant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other
criminal case.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
11. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
12. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
