Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
1
Cr.R.No.2794/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2794/2019
SANTOSH KUMAR
VS.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Petitioner by Shri Uma Shankar Jayaswal, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
A report dated 28.08.2025 received from the office Station
House Officer, Police Station Lakhnadon, District Seoni reveals that the
petitioner/Santosh Kumar has left the world and his death certificate is
also made appendage to the said report.
2. This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") had been filed by the
petitioner/accused against the judgment dated 06.06.2019 passed by
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, District Seoni,
in Criminal Appeal No.76/2012 affirming the judgment of conviction
dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Lakhnadon, District
Seoni, in Criminal Case No.1224/2010, thereby convicting the
petitioner/accused for commission of offence under Section 409 of IPC
and sentencing him to suffer three years RI & fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulations.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the first
informant Anil Mohan Tiwari, Manager of Adim Jati Seva Sahakari
Samiti Maryadit, Adegaon made a complaint to the police station to the
effect that the petitioner/accused, when posted in the said Samiti,
embezzled an amount of Rs.3,04,496.60, which caused loss to the public
exchequer. Then, an FIR bearing Crime No.16/1994 for the offence
punishable under Section 409 of IPC was lodged at Police Station
Lakhnadon, District Seoni, against the petitioner. Umpteen relevant
documents were seized.
3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the trial Court.
3.2 At trial, the petitioner/accused abjured his guilty and
pleaded false implication. After considering the evidence available on
record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under section
409 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years & fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. In appeal, the appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as mentioned
above. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that
during the pendency of this revision, when the petitioner/accused was
alive he deposited 50% of alleged defalcated amount as per the
condition made precedent by this Court while granting bail. He further
submitted that since the petitioner is no more in the world, the amount
deposited by him may be directed to be returned to his legal heir(s).
5. In reprisal, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
supported the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence
and submitted that the petitioner/accused was rightly convicted on the
fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the revision
deserves dismissal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined as many as 13 witnesses before the trial Court. First
informant Anil Mohan Tiwari (PW3) in his deposition, has categorically
reiterated his version as narrated in the FIR. He also stated that he had
lodged the FIR (Ex.P/40).
8. Reiterating and corroborating the version of first informant,
other independent witnesses have narrated in the same line. L.N.
Badhauria (PW11) had registered the FIR and also conducted
investigation into the matter about which he has stated in his
examination.
9. The learned trial Court as also the appellate Court have
meticulously discussed the prosecution evidence available on record.
The discrepancies appear in the statements of witnesses are minimal and
can be ignored. The statement of complainant is fully corroborated by
the statements of other witnesses. The contents of the FIR (Ex.P/40) and
the documentary evidence are corroborative of the statement of
complainant.
10. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., AIR 2008
SC 1165 it has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found
to be passed without considering relevant evidence or passed by
considering irrelevant evidence, interference by entering into merits and
re-appreciating entire evidence would be improper. In State of
Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.,
AIR 2004 SC 4412 it is held that Court cannot exercise revisional
power as a second appellate power.
11. The finding of the Court below is based on the evidence
adduced on record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by
this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the
judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed.
12. So far as the quantum of the sentence is concerned, the
petitioner/accused was sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Although, the petitioner/accused has
already passed away, therefore, no order of sentence is required to be
passed.
13. As regards prayer for disbursement of the amount deposited
by the petitioner/accused to his heir(s) - it cannot be acceded to inasmuch
as the deposited amount was the tranche of defalcated amount, which was
deposited by him at the time of seeking bail. Such an amount cannot be
allowed to be returned also because the petitioner/accused stood convicted
for the underlying offence.
14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. Record be sent
back to the Courts below along with a copy of this order.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
