Rajesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1.This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is directed against the judgment dated 03/02/2020 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore, in Cri. Appeal No.73/2019, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment dated 03/09/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore in RCT No.884/2017 whereby the applicant was convicted for offence under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has been externed from the Municipal limits of Indore and adjourning districts for a period of 6 months vide order No. 238/Nishkasan/R/17, dated 21/04/2017 passed by District Magistrate, Indore under Section 3 & 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. On 13/08/2017, on the basis of source information, Sub-Inspector Raju Chouhan went to village Chowradiya on search of the applicant and found the applicant present in the house built in his field, without prior permission of District Magistrate, Indore. On being enquired the applicant accepted his guilt, therefore, the applicant was found punishable for offence under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 hence he was duly arrested in the presence of panch witnesses Rahul and Dinesh. Thereafter, FIR bearing Crime No.441/2017 for offence under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been registered against the applicant. During the investigation statement of the witnesses were recorded and relevant documents were seized. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant.

Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. An appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03/02/2020 by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore. This judgment is under challenge in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the applicant is concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the applicant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the applicant, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (1 year R.I.) alone. It is submitted that the applicant is a poor labourer aged about 32 years and the sole bread earner of his family. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in applicant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the applicant has faced the trial for more than 4 years and has already served more than 5 months of the jail sentence awarded to him, therefore, counsel prayed that the applicant's jail sentence be reduced suitably.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have rightly found guilty the applicant for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicant, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Though the applicant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below with regard to guilty of the appellant, inasmuch as on due consideration of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and various documents exhibited during trial. I therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 14 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 recorded by the Courts below.

Now the question arises as to whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the applicant is a poor labourer, he has faced the trial for more than 4 years and has already served more than 5 months of the jail sentence awarded to him, therefore, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be and is hereby reduced from 1 year to 6 months R.I.

The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against applicant-Rajesh. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance.

With the aforesaid modification the criminal revision No.839/2020 stands partly allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.