Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Jat vs State Of M.P. on 21 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18549
1 CRR-895-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 895 of 2013
MANOJ JAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner from Legal Aid.
Shri Avinash Kulshreshtha - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This criminal
revision is pending since 2013, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri Rahul
Bansal, Advocate, who is present in the Court and his name is in the panel of
Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as counsel for the petitioner.
2. With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at
the motion hearing stage itself.
3. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short 'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 17.9.2013 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Guna in
Criminal Appeal No.71/2013, whereby the judgment dated 29.1.2013 passed
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No.2797/2009 has
been affirmed, whereby petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18549
2 CRR-895-2013
Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of
Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.
4. Prosecution story in brief is that on 18.12.2008 at about 2:30
AM when complainant Rakesh Kumkar Meena was travelling in a passenger
train from Bara to Beena, after passing Guna he slept and a mobile phone of
Nokia Company has been kept in his pocket of pant. Similarly, Sonaram
Gurjar also kept a mobile phone of Nokia Company along with cash of
Rs.2600/- but same has been stolen by the present petitioner/accused. Both
the complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station GRP, Beena and during
investigation stolen mobile has been recovered from the possession of
present petitioner/accused. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, who has framed the charge
under Section 379 of IPC. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded
complete innocence.
6. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses while defence
did not examine any witness.
7. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by
both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record,
convicted and sentenced petitioner for the offence mentioned herein-above.
8. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner has
preferred a Criminal Appeal before the First Appellate Court, but the same
was dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentenced by the trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18549
3 CRR-895-2013
Courts below, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this
Court.
9. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several
grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal
Revision on merit and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the
judgment. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the
sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be
reduced to the period already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing
trial for last 16 years. Petitioner has no criminal past, therefore, his jail
sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes
the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts
below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence
in question is sufficient.
11. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
12. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a
bare perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment
of conviction passed by both the Courts below.
13. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned,
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just
and proper. Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration for two months and four
days. At the time of incident petitioner was man of 22 years of age and now
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18549
4 CRR-895-2013
turn more than 38 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would
be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by
the petitioner.
14. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed
by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence
to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon
the petitioner by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioner is on
bail, his surety and bail bond stands discharged.
15. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by
the trial Court is also affirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal
Aid Committee, Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment
and payment of counsel fee to the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid
in accordance with rules.
17. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts
below be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
