AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant has filed this present appeal challenging the judgment dated 13/12/2000 delivered by Special Judge, Indore in special case No.8/1992 whereby convicted of the appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 sentencing him to undergo 3 months SI with fine of Rs.300/-, with default stipulations, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Facts in brief are that the present appellant on 10/04/1992 made forged ration card and took the illegal benefit from different Ration Shops. Thereafter the complainant has lodged the FIR. The police registered the case. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and the appellants were charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.
The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His only contention is that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that appellant is first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Neither prior to the alleged incident nor thereafter any criminal case is ever registered against him. Appellant was in custody for a period of 1 month and 2 days of jail sentence, out of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, their jail term be reduced to the period already undergone, specially keeping in view the long pendency of the appeal since 2001.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below has found the appellant guilty for the offence and no illegality has shown against the appellant. In such circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment passed in the case of Dharmendra Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (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 Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2009 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 92. In this case also, this Court has held that being 17 years old case, sentence reduced to the period already suffered.
In the present case also, the incident took place on 10/04/1992 i.e. more than 28 years ago. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant was in jail for 1 month and 2 days.
However, considering the fact that the appellant has undergone 1 month and 2 days of the sentence and under the circumstance, considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the nature of the incident, keeping in view the fact that appeal is pending since 2001 and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. Therefore, I partly allow the appeal by modifying the sentence, I impose sentence of 1 month and 2 days i.e. the period which has already been suffered by the appellant.
The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.
With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court alongwith the record for its information and compliance.
C.C. as per rules.