Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Rahul @ Chintu @ Chhilka v. State of M. P.

2019-03-14

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.4.2014 passed by JMFC, Ratlam in case No. 23200102692-2014 (Crime No. 210/2014) whereby the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 14 M.P. State Securities Act, 1990 sentencing him to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- against which the petitioner preferred criminal appeal No. 6011/2018 whereby the learned SJ, Ratlam vide judgment dated 30.11.2018 modified the conviction of the petitioner sentencing him to undergo 6 months RI with fine Rs. 1,000/-, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 2. Case of prosecution is that the present petitioner has violated the provisions of M.P. Securities Act, 1990 and has been arrested by the police. 3. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the judgments on merits. He further submitted that Sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is slightly harsh, which can be reduced to the period already undergone, which is 2 months and 6 days imprisonment till date. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner but he has not disputed the factual statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed in the case of Dharmendra Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2012 CrLR (M.P.) 232, in which the Court has upheld the conviction, however, as the incident is of 17 years old, the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced from three years to three months. Similarly, in the case of Ratiram and another v. State of M.P., reported in 2009 (I) MPWN 95 = 2009 CrLR (M.P.) 92. In this case also, this Court has held that being 17 years old case, sentence reduced to the period already suffered. 6. Considering the aforesaid, pendency of the case and other facts and facts of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the punishment awarded by the learned trial Court is modified, therefore, the revision is partly allowed. 7. The conviction of the petitioner under section 14 M.P. State Securities Act, 1990 recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the appellate Court is hereby confirmed. 7. The conviction of the petitioner under section 14 M.P. State Securities Act, 1990 recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the appellate Court is hereby confirmed. While his jail term is reduced to the period already undergone, in place of 6 months RI by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 8. With the aforesaid observation, present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.