Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1355 (MP)

Dharmendra Jain v. State of M. P.

2003-12-15

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397,401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order dated 30.10.2003 passed by VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.A. No. 158/03 whereby dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant against the order passed by CJM, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 308/02 on 28.8.03. In the criminal case, the CJM vide order dated 28.8.03 convicted the applicant under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (''Code" for short) and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo 2 month's imprisonment. In appeal the lower appellate Court also maintained the conviction, fine and jail sentence and dismissed the appeal, against which the applicant has filed this revision petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to commit the crime, but, the crime was committed unknowingly. He further submitted that it is not a case of theft but the applicant had taken away the vehicle under the wrong impression that it is the vehicle of his friend who had instructed him to use the same to take his mother for treatment to cancer hospital and therefore, technically the offence is committed under misunderstanding and wrong impression. He further submitted that the report of theft was lodged at 2.30 p.m. and the said vehicle was recovered on the same day at 3.45 p.m. and he also submitted that the applicant is a businessman residing in the same locality and it is a technical type of crime occurred due to misunderstanding and therefore he prayed that the conviction and fine amount awarded to the applicant may be maintained and he may be released on the jail sentence already undergone by him as he has already suffered more than 45 days of jail sentence. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no serious objection to the said prayer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no serious objection to the said prayer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below. Looking to the fact that applicant is a businessman and this is his first crime and that he is not a habitual offender and also looking to the fact that before the trial Court also the applicant had prayed for providing him benefit of probation but the same was declined, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be reasonable. Thus, looking to the facts and features of the case, this revision petition is partly allowed. Though conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the applicant are maintained, his jail sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. It is directed that if the applicant had not deposited the amount of fine, he shall deposit the same within 7 days and on his depositing the said fine amount, he be released forthwith. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.Cr.P. No. 2075/03 has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.