Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1417 (MP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of M. P.

2011-12-14

T.K.KAUSHAL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been preferred against judgment dated 3.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2001 convicting the appellant under section 353 of IPC and sentenced to 3 months R1 and fine of Rs. 1,000/- by modifying the judgment dated 27.3.2001 passed by JMFC Khurrai in Criminal Case No. 375/99. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 25.6.99 at about 3:00 p.m. Khalak Singh (PW-1) Bank Recovery Officer along with his colleagues reached to the house of the petitioner in respect of recovery of outstanding dues. Aforesaid recovery proceeding was objected and obstructed by the petitioner stating that outstanding dues has already been paid. As a result of aforesaid obstruction, bank officers could not proceed in the matter and lodged FIR at Police Station Khimlasa. A case was registered at Crime No. 79/99 under sections 186,353,294,34 of IPC against the petitioner Ashok Tiwari and his father. 3. Completing the investigation police Khimlasa submitted a charge-sheet under section 186,353,294 against the petitioner and his father. 4. Trial Court framed charges under sections 186, 353, 294 of IPC. Petitioner abjured guilt. Defence of the petitioner in the trial Court was that of false implication and malafide action of the bank officer on account of dispute and enmity. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution statements of Khalak Singh (PW-1) Bank Recovery Officer, Gautam Singh (PW-2), Supervisor, Land Development Bank Branch Kburrai, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari (PW- 3) Assistant Accoutant, Shri J.P. Jatav (PW-4), Bholanath Malviya (PW-5) Revenue Inspector, Pancham Singh (PW-6), Devisingh (PW-7) Driver, Kailash Bohre (PW-8) Head Constable, Ram Singh (PW-9) Head Constable and Laxmi Prasad (PW-10) Peon were recorded. 6. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, Trial Court acquitted co-accused Shambhu Dayal of all the charges and further accuitted the petitioner of the charges under sections 186,294 of IPC, however convicted him under section 353 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months RI and fine ofRs. 300/-. 7. The aforesaid judgment of trial Court was assailed by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions in appeal. Vide impugned judgment conviction under section 353 of IPC is affirmed. Jail sentence has been to reduced from 6 months RI to 3 months RI and enhanced fine from 300 to 1000/-. 8. 300/-. 7. The aforesaid judgment of trial Court was assailed by the petitioner in the Court of Sessions in appeal. Vide impugned judgment conviction under section 353 of IPC is affirmed. Jail sentence has been to reduced from 6 months RI to 3 months RI and enhanced fine from 300 to 1000/-. 8. This revision has been preferred on the grounds that prosecution failed to produce recovery certificate and authentic document showing the entitlement of the prosecution witnesses to enter in the house of the petitioner. Prosecution evidence is insufficient and is suffering from contradictions and omissions. Conviction is bad in law and is unsustainable and sentenced is harsh. On the other hand Panel Lawyer support the findings of conviction and sentence. 9. On going through the evidence of Khalak Singh (PW-1) and FIR EX~ P-6 further in view of the evidence of Gautam Singh (PW-2) and other prosecution witnesses, I see no perversity in findings of conviction given by the Courts below. Conviction of petitioner under section 353 is hereby affirmed. . 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pending this revision petitioners has suffered custody from 3.10.2002 to 9.10.2002 that is of 7 days. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this incident has occurred in the year 1999 and after about 12 years of the incident no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner back in jail. 11. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion for an offence under section 353 of IPC and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of 7 days undergone period seems to be just, proper and sufficient. This revision is allowed in part and is disposed of Conviction of petitioner under section 353 is affirmed. Jail sentence is reduced to already undergone period of 7 days. Sentence of fine is maintained. 12. Petitioner is directed to remain present before the trial Court on or before 14.2.2012 for depositing of fine amount, if not deposited. Anil Khare with Yash Soni for applicant; Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer respondent/State. '