Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nityanand @ Taklu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
1 CRR-2495-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29 th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2495 of 2023
NITYANAND @ TAKLU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision, under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., has been filed against the
judgment dated 17/04/2023 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind
(M.P.), in Criminal Appeal No.21/2021, arising out of the judgment and sentence
dated 04/03/2021 passed by JMFC, Bhind, in R.C.T. 2218/2013, by which
applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:-
Convicted
under Sentenced to
Section
147/149 of to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- in default
IPC to suffer imprisonment for one month
353/149 of to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- in default
IPC to suffer imprisonment for one month
to undergo RI for one month with fine of Rs.500/- in default
186 of IPC
to suffer imprisonment for one month
2. Facts, necessary for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that
complainant Dr. Ramesh Sharma, who was working as a public servant, lodged an
FIR alleging that on 06/09/2013, he, along with Jail Guard Om Singh, was on jail
patrolling. When they reached near Barrack No.01, they found the activity of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
2 CRR-2495-2023
accused persons to be suspicious. Therefore, he called the other jail staff to carry
out a search in the barrack. When the search was initiated, then all the accused
persons started opposing the same and began quarreling with other inmates who
were supporting the jail authorities to carry out the search. Applicant and other
accused persons also tried to pressurize the jail authorities not to carry out the
search. Accordingly, police force was called. Certain incriminating articles were
seized from the barrack, including one Samsung mobile phone with two SIMs, 25
packets of cigarettes, 27 packets of bidis, 27 packets of shampoo, 34 packets of
namkeen and biscuits, 4 packets of Rajnigandha pan masala, 30 packets of
tobacco, 180 packets of gutka, 3 boxes of rasgulla, 7 packets of classic cream, 17
pieces of Rin Soap, 13 pieces of Colgate toothpaste, 4 pieces of Mogra body
cleanser, 20 pouches of Vatika oil, 7 pieces of Gopal Namkeen Samosa Packet, 5
pieces of Aakash namkeen, 4 pieces of Mogra incense sticks, 3 packets of
Patanjali detergent, 3 packets of body spray, 20 packets of matchboxes, 4 pieces
of popular and huge quantity of vegetables. Accordingly, FIR in Crime
No.432/2013 (Ex.P/3) was registered.
3. After completing investigation, police filed charge-sheet against six
persons namely applicant Nityanand alias Taklu, Ramu Singh, Anar Singh, Ramu
Singh, Brijesh and Ashok, for offences under Sections 353, 186 and 147 of IPC.
4. The Trial Court, by order dated 05/12/2013, framed charges under
Sections 147/149, 353/149 and 186 of IPC. The applicant abjured his guilt and
pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution examined Dr. Ramesh Sharma (PW-1), Shankarlal
Sharma (PW-2), Hari Singh Narwariya (PW-3), Om Singh (PW-4), Kedarlal
Solanki (PW-5), Sughar Singh (PW-6), Ramshankar Sharma (PW-7) Pooran
Singh (PW-8) and K.K. Mishra (PW-9). Applicant did not examine any witness in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
3 CRR-2495-2023
his defence.
It appears that co-accused Ashok Singh was declared absconding by order
dated 03/12/2019 whereas Anar and Brijesh were declared absconding by order
dated 12/02/2020, and warrant of arrest was issued against them.
The Trial Court, by judgment dated 04/03/2021, convicted co-accused
Ramu Singh, Ramu Tomar, and applicant for the offences mentioned above.
Applicant filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.) by judgment and sentence dated
17/04/2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.21/2021.
6. Challenging the conviction, a solitary ground was raised by counsel for
applicant that it is clear from the seizure memo that incriminating articles were
seized from the possession of co-accused persons, therefore, applicant has been
falsely implicated.
7. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It
is submitted that the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence led by
the prosecution and have given concurrent findings of fact, thereby holding the
applicant guilty. Thus, revision filed by applicant has no merits
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Dr. Ramesh Sharma (PW-1) stated that on 06/09/2013, he was posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Bhind, and at about 10:50 p.m., he was on
patrolling. When he reached in front of Barrack No.1, he found applicant as well
as Ramu Tomar, Ramu Biraj, Ashok, and Brijesh were talking to each other. Since
activities of the accused persons were found to be suspicious, therefore, it was
inquired from them as to why they are talking and they should go to sleep.
However, he got suspicious that the accused persons are having some suspicious
articles. Accordingly, he took a decision to carry out the search and with the help
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
4 CRR-2495-2023
of jail staff search of Barrack No.1 was carried out. During search, accused
persons were made to sit outside the barrack. However, during search, Ramu
Tomar, Ramu Biraj, Ashok, applicant and Brijesh started quarrelling and created
hurdles in the search of barrack. Accordingly, he raised an alarm and with the help
of police force search was completed. Seizure memo (Ex.P/1) was prepared. In
addition to the articles mentioned in the seizure memo, one mobile phone and two
SIMs were also seized. The mobile as well as two SIMs were handed over to the
Police. Information of the incident was given to Police Headquarters, District
Judge Bhind, Collector/District Magistrate Bhind, S.P. Bhind and other officers.
Complaint Ex.P-2 was given and accordingly FIR Ex.P-3 was lodged. Spot map
(Ex. P/4) was prepared. Police had prepared seizure memo of mobile and two
SIMs which is Ex. P/5.
10. During the course of arguments, it was fairly admitted by counsel for
applicant that at the time of the seizure, applicant was lodged in Barrack No.1.
Except saying that incriminating articles were seized from other co-accused
persons, no other ground has been pointed out to show the perversity. The articles
which were seized by Ex.P-1 have already been reproduced in the previous
paragraphs. Huge quantity of cigarettes, vegetables, biscuits, bidis, shampoo, pan
masala, tobacco, gutka, body spray etc. were seized.
11. Counsel for applicant could not point out that if applicant was not
involved in storing the aforesaid articles, then why he did not report the illegal
storage of huge quantity of articles as mentioned in Ex.P-1 to the jail
authorities. The FIR was lodged approximately within nine hours of the seizure,
and before lodging the FIR, the Deputy Superintendent of Jail had informed his
senior officers and therefore, it cannot be said that FIR was lodged with a delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
5 CRR-2495-2023
12. Shankarlal Sharma (PW-2), Hari Singh Narwariya (PW-3), Om Singh
(PW-4), Kedarlal Solanki (PW-5), Sughar Singh (PW-6), Ramshankar
Sharma (PW-7), Pooran Singh (PW-8), who are jail guards, have supported the
prosecution case. They have specifically stated that when search was being carried
out then it was resisted by applicant and co-accused persons. With the help of
police, the search was completed and incriminating articles which have been
mentioned in the Ex.P-1 were seized from Barrack No.1.
13. Once applicant has admitted that he was lodged in Barrack No.1 where
the search was carried out and he has not disputed the recovery of incriminating
articles, then merely by saying that incriminating articles were not exclusively
seized from his possession cannot be said to be a valid defence because it is not a
case where one or two articles were seized but huge quantity of articles were
seized including cigarette, Bidi, vegetables, toothpaste, biscuits, namkeen, body
spray etc.
14. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of power under Section 397/401
of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with findings of fact untill and unless they are shown to
be perverse. No perversity could be pointed out by counsel for applicant. Even the
applicant did not lead any evidence in his defence.
15. Under these circumstances, in absence of any perversity in the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below with regard to guilt
of applicant, coupled with the fact that at the relevant point of time applicant was
lodged in Barrack No.1, this Court is of considered opinion that the courts below
did not commit any mistake by holding applicant guilty under Sections 147/149,
353/149 and 186 of IPC.
16. Accordingly, judgment dated 17/04/2023 passed by VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.), in Criminal Appeal No.21/2021 and judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2274
6 CRR-2495-2023
sentence dated 04/03/2021 passed by JMFC, Bhind, in R.C.T. 2218/2013 are
hereby affirmed.
17. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby canceled. He is
directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court by 28/02/2025, failing
which the Trial Court shall be free to initiate proceedings against applicant as well
as surety.
18. Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the courts below along with record for
necessary information and compliance.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
