Madhya Pradesh High Court
Snehlata vs State Of M.P. on 24 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23823
1 CRR-93-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 93 of 2006
SNEHLATA
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri R.K.Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Ayush Saxena,
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anurag Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner 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 dated 24.01.2006
passed by Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS), Gwalior in Criminal Appeal
No.292/2005, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
17.10.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in
Criminal Case No.23/1999 has been affirmed, wherein petitioner has been
convicted for offence under Sections 467, 471 and 468 of IPC and sentenced
to three years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-, 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-
and 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.12.1998 M.P. Singh, who is
Incharge of Flying Squad Transport, Gwalior had checked a vehicle Truck
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23823
2 CRR-93-2006
bearing Registration No.UP83-B-9523 and it is found that the Truck Driver
Ramdeen was not having any valid license and national permit and
authorization letter appears to be forged. They were seized vide seizure
memo and sent for verification to RTO, Agra. RTO found that the
authorization letter was forged. It is also alleged that petitioner Snehlata is
the owner of said Truck. Thereafter complainant M.P. Singh reported the
matter with a written complaint to Police Station Panihar. Accordingly,
offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. The Trial Court has framed
the charges under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Petitioner/accused
abjured her guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined
as many as 8 witnesses before the Trial Court, while defence has examined
three witnesses.
4. After completion of trial and scrutinizing evidence available on
record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the
aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal before Additional Sessions Judge
but the same has been dismissed by upholding the conviction and sentence
passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision.
5. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23823
3 CRR-93-2006
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 petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by her, as the petitioner is facing trial for 27 long years
and she has suffered jail incarceration for 2 months and 7 days and she is a
housewife having no criminal past and now she has turned 57 years of age,
therefore, her jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but bare perusal
of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgments of conviction
passed by both the Courts below.
9. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner appear to be just and proper.
Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration from 05.01.1999 to 04.03.1999 (2
months) and 24.01.2006 to 01.02.2006 (7 days), total 2 months and 7 days.
At the time of incident, petitioner was a lady of 38 years of age and now
turned more than 57 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it
would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already
undergone by the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23823
4 CRR-93-2006
10. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing jail sentence to the
period already undergone by her. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioner is hereby affirmed.
11. Petitioner is on bail. Her surety and bail bond stands discharged.
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.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
