Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 33 (MP)

Ramkrishna Dixit v. State of M. P.

2014-01-07

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
Judgment N.K.Gupta,J. Vide judgment dated 19.12.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna in Criminal Case No.447/1987 the applicant was convicted for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and sentenced with one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, two years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and one year's RI with fine of Rs.2000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.75/1996 the learned Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 9.11.1998 maintained the conviction of the applicant, but sentence was reduced for the offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC with one month's RI with fine of Rs.300/-, two months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- and two months' RI with fine of Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision.2 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 3.10.1983 an FIR was lodged at Police Station Devendra Nagar District Panna that on 8.12.1982 the applicant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1800/- from the saving account of one Ramji Garg by making his forged signature. Thereafter on 17.2.1983 he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3600/- from the same account of Ramji Garg and on 6.8.1982 he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9000/- from the account of Shri Ramkrishna Dixit by creating his forged signature. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 2. The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was not the person, who had withdrawn the amount or he created forged signature of the consumers. In defence Handwriting Expert Jai Prakash Verma (DW-2) was examined. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna after considering the evidence adduced before him convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and looking to the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it would be apparent that the alleged sum was withdrawn from the Bank in various accounts. B.K.Badhwani (PW-2) the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank has stated against the applicant whereas 3 the applicant was also an employee in the branch. The testimony of the Branch Manager cannot be discarded. It is duly confirmed by the Handwriting Expert Shri S.K.Kamthan (PW-12). The consumers were also examined and they told that the amount was withdrawn from their accounts. The testimony of the Branch Manager cannot be discarded. It is duly confirmed by the Handwriting Expert Shri S.K.Kamthan (PW-12). The consumers were also examined and they told that the amount was withdrawn from their accounts. The applicant tried to establish a fact that a mistake has been committed by the Handwriting Expert and he examined such an Expert in defence. However, the testimony of the Handwriting Expert Shri S.K.Kamthan cannot be discarded and when in the enquiry concerned Branch Manager found that it was the applicant who had withdrawn the amount, then after corroboration of the Handwriting Expert it was duly proved that the applicant was the person, who forged the withdrawal slips and withdrawn the amount by cheating. Under such circumstances, both the courts below have rightly convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant had deposited the withdrawal amount in the accounts of the consumers, however his guilt was grave. The trial Court has directed an appropriate sentence against the applicant, but the Appellate Court reduced the sentence in extra liberal manner, and therefore it is not possible to reduce the sentence of the applicant again. However, it is apparent that out of two months' RI, he has 4 already undergone for one month and 24 days in the jail and only a period of one week remains. The applicant became an old person and he submits that he may not be directed to suffer more custody period. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that he may be released today itself by reduction of sentence to the period for which he remained in the custody by enhancement of fine amount. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC is hereby maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. However, the fine amount for the offence under Section 468 of IPC is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.4200/-. No change in fine of other offences. The applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the trial Court. 8. The applicant is in custody. However, the fine amount for the offence under Section 468 of IPC is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.4200/-. No change in fine of other offences. The applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the trial Court. 8. The applicant is in custody. The office is directed to arrange for his release from the custody by today itself, and therefore an arrangement of issuance of release warrant be made. 9. A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information and compliance.