Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 599 (MP)

Prakash Chandra v. State of M. P.

2012-06-25

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.7.2007 passed by ASJ, Ambah, District Morena (MP) in Cr. A. No.36/2007 whereby the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed by JMFC, Ambah in Criminal Case No.612/2006 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 39 of the Electricity Act by sentencing him to undergo 1 year RI and fine of Rs.500/-, was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity illegally. The matter was reported to the police station and the investigating agency after completing all due formalities filed the challan before the court below. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioner was convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that judgment which was dismissed, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has been convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that petitioner was in jail w.e.f. 17.7.2007 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2007. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor person. It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.57,000/- which is amount of energy. The petitioner has closed the flour mill. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower re-appreciation of evidence. Hence so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below is maintained. 7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing further fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of two months, for which counsel for the State also agrees, failing which the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. 8. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed.The findings of conviction is 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 further fine of Rs.5,000/- 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 bonds stands discharged. It is also made clear that in case of arrest, when the petitioner fails to deposit the amount petitioner shall be further liable to pay fine @ Rs.50/- per day and shall be released forthwith upon depositing the amount with fine. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of.