Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1010 (MP)

R. N. Tandon v. State of M. P.

2013-08-27

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 468 and 420 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur in criminal case No.12/1994 and sentenced for 1½ years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, 3 months simple imprisonment was also directed. In criminal appeal No.69/2000 vide judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, the appeal was partly allowed. The conviction was maintained but, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count, whereas default sentence was converted for 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant was the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No.CIK-8043, which was insured with United India Insurance company. The truck met with an accident and therefore, the applicant informed the insurance company about the accident. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to give his report and thereafter, its branch relating to claim processed the claim. The vehicle was to be taken to a garage and thereafter, a final survey report was submitted. Thereafter, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. The applicant sent an intimation of an accident by letter, Ex.P/11. Surveyor R.K.Gulati was appointed, who gave his report, Ex.P/2 and ultimately, a payment of Rs.20,457/- was done to the National Garage, Jabalpur. Thereafter, it was found that an exaggerated claim was produced by the applicant and a fake bill was given to the insurance company and payment was made accordingly. The applicant has done a cheating with the insurance company and also used that forged bill as genuine. On lodging the FIR, the matter was registered with the CBI, Branch Jabalpur and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He accepted the procedure shown by the complainant. However, he has submitted that he raised the claim application and the vehicle was repaired with authorized repairing center of the insurance company and the payment was made to the repairing center directly. In support of his contention, Anant Kumar Agrawal (D.W.1) and H.S.Pollock (D.W.2) were examined. 4. He accepted the procedure shown by the complainant. However, he has submitted that he raised the claim application and the vehicle was repaired with authorized repairing center of the insurance company and the payment was made to the repairing center directly. In support of his contention, Anant Kumar Agrawal (D.W.1) and H.S.Pollock (D.W.2) were examined. 4. The learned Special Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas his appeal was partly allowed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant did not argue on the merits of the case but, he has submitted that the applicant has faced the trial, appeal and the present revision since last 19 years. He is almost settled in his life. Now-a-days he is an old person, who is unable to reside in the jail. It was not the sole fault of the applicant. The overtact of the applicant was not so grave, so that he could be punished with the jail sentence. However, he remained in the custody for 3 days during the trial and thereafter, for 41 days during the revision. Looking to his custody period, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, [ AIR 1986 SC 2192 ], “Manjur Faiju Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [ AIR 1993 SC 2322 ] and “Nandlal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others”, [ AIR 2010 SC 1875 ]. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the sentence awarded by the appellate Court appears to be appropriate. 8. Though the learned counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction on merits but, it is the duty of the Court to consider the merits of the conviction. It is apparent that the payment was received by National Garage after submission of a forged bill. However, the applicant cannot be relieved from his guilt due to that fact because he raised a forged bill before the Insurance company, whereas the actual bill was at Ex.P/4. It is apparent that the payment was received by National Garage after submission of a forged bill. However, the applicant cannot be relieved from his guilt due to that fact because he raised a forged bill before the Insurance company, whereas the actual bill was at Ex.P/4. Deepak Modi (P.W.3), owner of the repairing agency has submitted that the forged bill was found issued on the letter head of the company but, neither any serial number was given to that bill, nor it was found issued from his office and therefore, it is apparent that the applicant has submitted a forged bill to the insurance company with the interest that he could get double compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle, whereas the actual bill, Ex.P/4 was of a lesser amount and therefore, though payment was received by the authorities of National Garage, it could be presumed that some share would have been obtained by the applicant also. Though the investigation officer did not implicate the concerned officer of the National Garage and the concerned surveyor as accused alongwith the applicant but, the guilt of the applicant cannot be discarded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly mentioned in his judgment that for completion of offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC, it is not necessary to prove the wrongful gain as well as the wrongful loss. If wrongful loss is proved then the offence of section 420 of IPC is completed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed his reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Tulsiram and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, [ AIR 1963 SC 666 ]. Hence, it is apparent that the bill was raised to cheat the insurance company and a wrongful loss was caused to the insurance company, therefore, the applicant has committed an offence under section 420 of IPC as well as section 468 of IPC. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant is now a senior citizen, who has faced the trial, appeal and revision for last 19 years. It is also true that the part of the claim of the applicant was rejected by the insurance company on technical grounds. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant is now a senior citizen, who has faced the trial, appeal and revision for last 19 years. It is also true that the part of the claim of the applicant was rejected by the insurance company on technical grounds. It is also apparent that the vehicle was repaired in an authorized garage of the insurance company and a surveyor had also given his report about the required repairing. Under such circumstances, the liability of the applicant was not so grave, so that he was required to be sent to the jail for a lengthier period. He remained in the custody for 44 days in all. Hence, in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Nandlal (supra), it is a fit case in which the sentence directed against the applicant may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. However, some fine may be enhanced. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. His conviction for offence punishable under sections 420 and 468 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period, for which the applicant remained in the custody during the trial, appeal and revision. However, the fine for offence punishable under section 468 of IPC is enhanced from a sum of Rs.3,000/- to a sum of Rs.10,000/-, whereas there is no change in the fine amount for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. The applicant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 11. The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged, after deposit of the fine amount. 12. A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information and compliance.