Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manohar vs State Of M.P. on 24 April, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9074
1 CRR-887-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 887 of 2006
MANOHAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Arun Pateriya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2.This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 2.11.2006 passed by
Second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge District Guna in
Criminal Appeal No.24/2005, whereby judgment and order of conviction dated
20.12.2004 passed by JMFC, Guna in criminal case No.1036/1998, by which
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 3000/- with usual default
stipulation.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 24.6.1996 complainant Kashiram
Kirar lodged an FIR at Police Station Guna by stating that on 30.5.1995 present
appellant Mahohar along with co-accused were advertising that they should make
delivery of Saurashtra Tractor. Complainant told them that he wants to purchase
Saurashtra Tractor. Thereafter, on 30.5.1995 complainant gave Rs.80,000/- to
both the accused persons and co-accused Madan gave receipt for it but despite
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9074
2 CRR-887-2006
payment of entire amount, appellant along with other co-accused persons did not
supply him aforesaid Tractor. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioner and other co-accused persons before JMFC, Guna who framed charges
under Section 420, 120 B and 468 of IPC against petitioner and other co-accused
persons. Petitioner abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely
implicated in this matter. The trial Court after scrutinizing evidence available on
record and considering the rival submissions made by both the parties, has rightly,
acquitted Madan from all the charges and also acquitted petitioner for the offence
under Section 120B of IPC but his conviction and sentence under Section 420 of
IPC was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, this criminal revision has
been preferred before this Court.
5. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but
during the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner did not press this
revision on merit and not assailed the finding part of impugned judgment. He
confines his arguments on the point of sentence only and prays that since
petitioner who is 65 years old, remained 28 days in custody and suffering trial
since last 30 years and he is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, present
revision be disposed of and jail sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to
the period already undergone.
6. Learned counsel for respondent/State on the other hand supported the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
7. Since petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by Courts
below, in these circumstances conviction recorded against petitioner for the
offence under Section 420 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However, considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9074
3 CRR-887-2006
facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that since petitioner has already
suffered jail sentence for about 28 days, he is facing trial since 1995 i.e. about 30
years now, he is aged about 65 years, he is not having any criminal background,
therefore, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to partly allow the revision
by affirming the conviction, however, by reducing his jail sentence to the period
already undergone but by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.3000 to Rs.15000/-.
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining the
conviction, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by
petitioner, however, by enhancing fine amount under Section 420 of IPC from
Rs.3000 to Rs. 15000/-. The enhanced amount be deposited before trial Court by
petitioner within a period of one month from today and in case of default of
depositing the enhanced fine amount, the trial Court shall proceed accordingly.
Since the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged. Disposal of property shall be conducted as per the order of trial Court.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with the
records for information and necessary compliance.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
