Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 955 (MP)

Ravindra Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-08-05

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.The surety is present in person. Heard Shri Rajneesh Sharma appearing for the surety. 2. Notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the amount of surety bond should not be forfeited. In reply it is submitted that the surety was not aware that the petitioner Ravindra Singh is not appearing before the Court. When this fact came to the notice of the surety, he has moved an application. It is prayed that the order be recalled. 3. From perusal of the record it appears that the execution of sentence was suspended vide order dated 29.5.2008. The surety has furnished the bail of the petitioner Ravindra Singh, but Ravindra Singh remained absent since 13.2.2011. Taking into consideration that the surety has not complied with the conditions of the bail and the petitioner accused Ravindra Singh remain absconded for about two and half years, it is directed that if the surety deposits Rs. 4,000/- within one month from today in the trial Court the remaining amount of surety bond deemed to have been waived. It is made clear that if the surety fails to deposit the aforesaid amount the whole amount should be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 4. Learned counsel submits that he has not pressed I.A. No. 3561 of 2014 and he is ready to argue the matter finally. 5. With consent the matter is heard finally. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 3.5.2008 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 244 of 2007, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act and sentenced to undergo three months RI and pay fine of Rs. 500/-. 6. As per the prosecution case, on 23.7.2001 ASI Rampal Singh alongwith other Police personells was on duty and on receipt of information that applicant is playing Satta, reached the spot and caught the applicant. Cash of Rs. 252/- dot-pen were recovered. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed. 7. Learned JMFC, Guna in Cri. Case No. 1566 of 2006 has convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo three months RI with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act. Being aggrieved Cri. Appeal was preferred bearing No. 244 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Guna, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 3.5.2008, being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed. 500/- under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act. Being aggrieved Cri. Appeal was preferred bearing No. 244 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Guna, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 3.5.2008, being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed. 8. Learned counsel submits that he does not want to press this petition as regards the conviction of the applicant. From perusal of the record, it appears that RBS Jadon has clearly stated that on receipt of information he reached the spot and the applicant was found playing Satta. This testimony has been corroborated by Ashok Singh (PW-2) though, Rajaram (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution version. However, there is not ground to disbelieve the statement of RBS Jadon and Ashok Singh, Constable. Thus, the finding of guilt is fully established and I see no perversity in the finding, hence the conviction of the applicant under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act is affirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel submits that petitioner remained in custody from 3.5.2008 to 31.5.2008. The incident alleged to have taken place on 23.7.2001. There is no previous conviction, hence prayed that a lenient view be taken. 9. Taking into consideration that this is the first offence of the petitioner and the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of about 28 days, hence while affirming the conviction under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling Act the sentence is set aside. The petitioner is sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone by him and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It is informed that the amount of fine awarded by the trial Court has already been deposited, hence the balance amount of fine be deposited within one month from today before the trial Court. With the aforesaid modification this revision petition stands disposed of.