[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mubarik vs Jila Magistrate on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37103
1 CRR-3738-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3738 of 2024
MUBARIK
Versus
JILA MAGISTRATE
Appearance:
Shri Chandra Prakash Purohit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard On: 09.09.2025
Delivered On: 16.12.2025
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397(5) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is
preferred challenging the legality of judgment dated 20.07.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal no.74/2021 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur
arising out of the judgment dated 30.10.2021 passed in RCT
No.1001680/2012 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur whereby the
revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 193 of IPC and has been
sentenced to three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of
one month R.I.
2. The conviction of the revision petitioner has been recorded for
giving false evidence in SC No.87/2000 before the First Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur in a case arising out of Crime
No.243/2000 registered at Police Station City Kotwali under Section 21 read
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37103
2 CRR-3738-2024
with Section 78 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in which three persons namely
Bherulal, Mukesh and Dulichand Resident of Tehsil Malhargarh, District
Mandsaur were prosecuted and the revision petitioner was the witness of
Panchnama proceedings Ex.P/5, Seizure Memo Ex.P/6, Panchnama
proceedings Ex.P/7, Arrest of Dulichand Ex.P;/8 and further documents
Ex.P/09 to Ex.P/19. The prosecution was lodged due to the fact that trial was
commenced against Bherulal and Mukesh then his statements were recorded
on 04.02.2023 (Ex.P/2) and he has admitted his signatures on Ex.P/5 to
Ex.P/17 but denied the proceedings contained in the documents and he was
declared hostile. Thereafter, the trial was commenced against Dulichand and
statement of revision petitioner were recorded on 12.07.2008 and he
supported the case of the prosecution and complaint was lodged by the then
additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur that revision
petitioner has deposed contrary and inconsistent statement in SC
No.87/2000.
3. The learned Trial Court recorded the conviction appreciating the
testimony of Deepak Sakle Steno District Cout Mandsuar as PW-1 who filed
the complaint Ex.P/1 on behalf of the than Special Judge, NDPS Act,
Mandsaur and the Statements of Parmeshwar Bairagi PW-2 who proved the
statement Ex.P/2 recorded on 04.02.2003 and Om Prakash Sharma PW-3
who proved the statement of the revision petitioner recorded on 10.07.2010
in SC No.87/2000 and the proceedings dated 10.07.2008 as Ex.P/5.
4. In examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973, there was no
explanation regarding the facts and circumstances appeared against him and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37103
3 CRR-3738-2024
ignorance was expressed.
5. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this criminal
revision has been filed.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
8. Perused the record.
9. On perusal of Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4 as proved by Parmeshwar PW-2
and Om Prakash Sharma PW-3, the conviction of the revision petitioner
under Section 193 of IPC does not call for interference as there is no
perversity in appreciating of evidence or there is no misinterpretation of any
of the documents.
10. Now, come to the quantum of sentence, there is no criminal
antecedents of the revision petitioner and copy of the final report disclosed
that on 13.08.2000, the revision petitioner was aged about 42 years and now
he is more than 67 years and he has already undergone the sentence of one
month and 25 days i.e. from 20.07.2024 to 14.09.2024, the ends of justice
would be served if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period
already undergone and fine is enhanced.
11. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed on the
following terms:
(i) The judgment dated 30.10.2021 passed in
RCT No.1001680/2012 by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Mandsaur and affirmed vide judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37103
4 CRR-3738-2024
20.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal no.74/2021 by
First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, is hereby
modified to the extent that revision petitioner is
awarded sentence to the period already undergone by
enhancing the fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/-.
(ii) The fine amount shall be deposited by the
revision petitioner with 60 days from today.
(iii) In case of failure to deposit the amount
within the aforesaid order, he shall undergo the
imprisonment of two months R.I.
12. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed off.
13. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
