Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chunna @ Charan Singh vs State Of M.P on 27 October, 2025
1 WRIT PETITION No. 2647 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 2647 of 2012
CHUNNA @ CHARAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Gautam - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Padamshri Agrawal Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
(Delivered on this day of 27th October, 2025)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 07/10/2025, the petitioner Chunna @ Charan Singh
is present in person before this Court. He has been duly identified by his counsel and
his presence is marked.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.
3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 29/03/2012 passed by Sessions
Judge, Ashoknagar (M.P.) in criminal appeal No. 11/2012, which was preferred under
section 33 of Village Court Adhiniyam, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge,
Ashoknagar (M.P.) affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19/12/2011 passed in criminal case No. 182/2010 by Judicial Officer, Village Court,
Ashoknagar (M.P.), whereby, the petitioner was convicted under section 379 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three months with fine of
Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month
rigorous imprisonment.
4. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that the complainant Madan on
20/03/2009 has lodged report at police station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar stated
therein that some unknown person has stolen his electric motor of one horse power
worth Rs. 6,000/- and 200 feet lezam worth Rs. 1,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid, an
FIR bearing Crime No. 44/2009 was registered at police station Kachnar, District
Ashoknagar for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC. On lodging of
F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, statements of the witnesses
were recorded; prepared the spot map; arrested the accused person and after
completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet was submitted before the
competent Court having criminal jurisdiction.
5. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused / petitioner
for the offence punishable under section under section 379 of IPC and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month rigorous
imprisonment, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar (M.P.)
vide judgment dated 29/03/2012 passed in criminal appeal No. 11/2012. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29/03/2012 passed in criminal appeal No.
11/2012, the accused / petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that petitioner has falsely
been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted
that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested
witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that petitioner aged about 38
years is facing the criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 2009 to till date
and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and has already served total
imprisonment of Twenty one days out of total awarded jail sentence of Three months.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Verma vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485, in the case of
Surendran vs. Sub - Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 and also
in the case of Rameshwar Singh vs. State of M.P. delivered by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 16/01/2023 passed in Cr.R. No. 819/2009. On these
grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
7. In alternative leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in
jail for 21 days including pre and post conviction period and the jail sentence was
suspended by this Court vide order dated 12/04/2012. It is submitted that looking to
the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served 21 days of jail
sentence and the long protracted litigation, the same may be reduced to the period
already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
8. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioner,
which requires no interference. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner be dismissed.
9. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner, hence the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below require no interference
and is hereby maintained.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State (Delhi
Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 282 has held as under:-
"the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the
judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was
under Section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of
punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone by the convict."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Sharvan Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (1985) 3 SCC 658 has held as under:-
"the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was
delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467 and 471
IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one
of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone."
12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Surendran vs. Sub - Inspector of
Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 has held as under:-
"10. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years
ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial
Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction
under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six
months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section
11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts
and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years
have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the
sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into
fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are
substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine
under Section 337 IPC is maintained."
13. So far as the period of sentence is concerned and the nature of offence and the
fact that petitioner who is aged about 38 years is facing the criminal proceedings
since 20/03/2009 and the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded
to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of
fine is hereby enhanced upto Rs. 2,000/- for offence under section 379 of IPC, total
enhanced amount is Rs. 2,000/- only.
14. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are
hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded
to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing
additional fine amount of Rs. 1,500/- within a period of two months, failing which,
the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioner
is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
15. With the aforesaid modification, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
16. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
