Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12956 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 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 REVISION No. 289 of 2013

                          BETWEEN:-
                          VIJAY KUMAR S/O NANAKRAM PARIYANI, AGED
                          ABOUT 30 YEARS, 9, RAVINDRA NAGAR, INDORE
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S.
                          CENTRAL KOTWALI INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GA FOR STATE)
                                                     Heard on :10.04.2024
                                                   Pronounced on: 08.05.2024

                                This revision petition was heard and reserved by this Court and the
                          court pronounced the following:
                                                              ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge Electricity Act), Indore (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.413/2009 whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, by confirming the conviction and s entenc e passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, in judgment dated 06.07.2009 in Criminal Case No.3778/2005 wherein the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section

68-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Section 292 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 02 years R.I. and six months R.I. with fine of Rs.10000/- & Rs.1000/- respectively and usual default stipulation.

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 merits and not assailed the finding part of judgment. Counsel for the petitioner confined his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately 50 days of jail incarceration out of two years, therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already

deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2005 i.e. for a period of 19 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

4. Having considered the rival submissions 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. Further, it is found that both the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported b y the complainant, witnesses and documentary testimony. 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 both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of almost 19 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner regarding enhancement fine appear to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2005, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone b y increasing the fine amount from Rs.10000/- to Rs.50,000/- under Section 68-A of Copyright Act. So far as the sentence under Section 292 of IPC and fine is concerned, the sentenced is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs.1000/- shall remain intact. The enhanced fine amount to be paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

8. The bail bond of the petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioner fail to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 50 days of simple imprisonment in default. The fine amount, if already deposited shall be adjusted.

9. Judgement of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized

property stands affirmed.

1 0 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit