Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 104 (MP)

Prabhulal v. State of M. P.

2013-01-22

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE

body2013
JUDGMENT : This revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Criminal Appeal No.46/1993 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 12.7.1993 passed by A.C.J.M. Sheopurkalan, whereby petitioner has been convicted under Sections 467, 120-B and 409 of IPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the finding of the conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. It is further submitted that the petitioner, Prabhulal has undergone about 55 days imprisonment (from 7.8.2006 to 30.9.2006 ) and fine amount Rs.3000/- has been deposited before the Trial Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 2. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 3. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court and therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same again. However, it is apposite to mention here that the learned Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 467, 120-B and 409 of IPC and sentenced to serve three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in each offence. It is further directed that all the jail sentence shall run concurrently. The learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2004 affirmed the judgment of conviction, however, reduced the sentence from three years to nine months rigorous imprisonment in each offence with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. 4. As before this Court, finding of conviction recorded by the Courts below has not been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. 5. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the petitioner has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court as stated hereinabove. 6. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. The petitioner has remained in the custody for a period of 55 days. The alleged incident took place in the year 1970 about 42 years back. The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since 1993 and presently he is more than 70 years of age. 6. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. The petitioner has remained in the custody for a period of 55 days. The alleged incident took place in the year 1970 about 42 years back. The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since 1993 and presently he is more than 70 years of age. Under these circumstances, the interest of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed partly. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the Court below under Sections 467, 120-B and 409 of IPC is hereby affirmed, but the sentence passed by the Court below is set-aside and instead thereof, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence. 8. The bail bonds of petitioner stand discharged. 9. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision petition is disposed of finally.