Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram vs State Of M.P. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5128
1 CRR-862-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 862 of 2006
SHRIRAM
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R. S. Yadav, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the motion
hearing stage itself.
2. The applicant 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
17.10.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal
Appeal No.429/2006, whereby the judgment dated 28.09.2006 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magiatrate, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.668/2006 has been affirmed,
whereby applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 34(1)(A) read
with Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and sentenced to undergo two years RI with
fine of Rs.25,000/- with usual default stipulation.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.04.2004, ASI P. N. Paul got a
discreet information from informant regarding illegal possession of liquor. Acting
upon the said information, Police reached at the spot and searched hut of the
petitioner/accused and during search 745 Quarter Country Made liquor has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5128
2 CRR-862-2006
recovered from his possession which was kept by him without having any valid
license. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the
present applicant before the CJM, Shivpuri, who has framed the charges under
Section 34(1)(A) read with Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act against the applicant.
Applicant has abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated
in the instant case. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by
both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the
present applicant as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has
preferred first appeal but same has also been dismissed by affirming the judgment
and sentence passed by trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner
has preferred this revision petition before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments submits
that applicant 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 applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by
him. He further contended that applicant has already suffered jail incarceration for
the period of 1 year and four months imprisonment, out of his jail sentence of 2
years RI. He has already deposited fine amount. Therefore, his jail sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision
and prays for maintaining the sentence passed by trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. From perusal of record, it appears that it is an offence of 2006. Further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5128
3 CRR-862-2006
from perusal of order-sheet dated 13.7.2015 by this Court, it is clear that petitioner
has already suffered jail incarceration of about 1 year and 4 months. He has
already deposited fine amount. Nothing is available on record that he has been
previously convicted for the aforesaid offence.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
appellant has already suffered substantive portion of the jail sentence. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to limit the quantum of sentence to that already undergone.
Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of
appellant for the offence under Section 31(1)(A) read with Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act and reducing the jail sentence.
10. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
11. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial
Court is also affirmed.
12. 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
R
