Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1006 (MP)

Shobhnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2003-08-25

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 9-8-96 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Criminal Appeal No. 44/93 whereby he dismissed the appeal. The Trial Court convicted the applicant for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ -. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the Sessions Court maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The applicant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with co-accused persons Radhe Shyam, Babulal and Shyamlal. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case was that the accused persons were partners of the firm M/s. Puranlal Purushottam Gupta, Satna. The partners of the said firm purchased wheat from complainant Mourdhvaj (P. W. 1) and issued cheques dated 9-3-72 and 10-3-72 for Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7,190/respectively towards payment of its cost, knowing well that there was no enough fund for realisation of cheques. The cheques were dishonoured and thereafter in spite of accepting the guilt of issuing such cheques which were dishonoured and promise to pay the amount, not paid the amount thereby committed the offences as mentioned above. ( 3. ) THE Trial Court after recording the evidence, acquitted all the co-accused persons. The Trial Court also acquitted the applicant from the charge for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, however convicted the applicant for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4. ) THE Trial Court and the Appellate Court have recorded the findings against the applicant, that he purchased wheat from the complainant with dishonest intention and to deceive the complainant issued two cheques knowing that there is no sufficient fund in his account thereby committed the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons in support of their concurrent findings. The findings to above effect amply borne out from the evidence and the material brought on record. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below regarding conviction of the applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, hereby affirmed. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below regarding conviction of the applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, hereby affirmed. ( 5. ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned the alleged offence is of the year 1972. The applicant has undergone sentence of 13 days and he is now aged 70 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is habitual offender. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and the period of time elapsed, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail now and that the interest of justice would be served by awarding a sentence for the period already undergone by the applicant together with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment of sentence as awarded by the Courts below. If the applicant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 500/- he shall deposit the balance amount of Rs. 500/- only. ( 6. ) FOR the foregoing reasons the revision filed by the applicant against conviction and sentence is partly allowed.