Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tantiram vs State Of M.P. on 22 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18841
1 CRR-472-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 472 of 2013
TANTIRAM
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Singhal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Avinash Kulshreshtha - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at
the motion hearing stage itself.
2. 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 10.6.2013 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Bhind in
Criminal Appeal No.422/2012, whereby the judgment dated 20.11.2012
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Criminal Case
No.832/2006 has been affirmed, whereby petitioner has been convicted for
the offence under Section 419 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI
with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 15.4.2000 a written complaint
has been filed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind before the Chief
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18841
2 CRR-472-2013
Judicial Magistrate, Bhind in S.T. No.38/1992 (State of M.P. vs. Budhsingh
and others) pending before him. Petitioner with intention to cheat the Court
and with knowledge that he is not Rakesh Kumar impersonated himself as
Rakesh Kumar and given surety for accused Chhote Lal. Accordingly,
offence has been registered.
4. Trial Court has framed the charge under Section 419 of IPC.
Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses before the
Trial Court while defence did not examine any witness.
6. 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 under Section 419 of IPC
and sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulation.
7. 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
Courts below, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this
Court.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18841
3 CRR-472-2013
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 25 years. Petitioner has no criminal past, therefore, his jail
sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. 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.
10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
11. 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.
12. 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 17 days. At the time
of incident petitioner was man of 37 years of age and now turn more than 77
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.
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18841
4 CRR-472-2013
bail, his surety and bail bond stands discharged.
14. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by
the trial Court is also affirmed.
15. 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)
