Banti Alias Vishnu Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—Vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No. 166/2001 whereby the petitioner herein/accused has been convicted u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to suffer 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved thereof the accused preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 18.2.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2006 affirmed the judgment of conviction, however, reduced the sentence to one month rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-. Being aggrieved thereof this Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the petitioner herein/accused. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the learned Courts below, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. His only submission is that the petitioner has already undergone 8 days of the sentence, the fine amount has already been deposited, there is no previous criminal conduct of the petitioner and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

Learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the petitioner. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Courts below for convicting the petitioner to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same.

As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below against the petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed.

With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the petitioner has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court and reduced by the learned Appellate Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. The petitioner has remained under detention from 23.4.2001 to 24.4.2001 during the trial and thereafter served sentence from 18.2.2006 to 25.2.2006. The incident was occurred on 19.3.2001. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the Appellate Court.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court u/s 39 of Indian Electricity Act is hereby affirmed but the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail, i.e., about 8 days with fine as imposed by the Appellate Court.

With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is disposed of finally. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.