The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicant's guilt under sections 420 and 468 of IPC based on the submission of a forged bill to the insurance company and the wrongful loss caused.

The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 468 and 420 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur in criminal case No.12/1994 and sentenced for 1½ years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, 3 months simple imprisonment was also directed. In criminal appeal No.69/2000 vide judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, the appeal was partly allowed. The conviction was maintained but, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count, whereas default sentence was converted for 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant was the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No.CIK-8043, which was insured with United India Insurance company. The truck met with an accident and therefore, the applicant informed the insurance company about the accident. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to give his report and thereafter, its branch relating to claim processed the claim. The vehicle was to be taken to a garage and thereafter, a final survey report was submitted. Thereafter, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. The applicant sent an intimation of an accident by letter, Ex.P/11. Surveyor R.K.Gulati was appointed, who gave his report, Ex.P/2 and ultimately, a payment of Rs.20,457/- was done to the National Garage, Jabalpur. Thereafter, it was found that an exaggerated claim was produced by the applicant and a fake bill was given to the insurance company and payment was made accordingly. The applicant has done a cheating with the insurance company and also used that forged bill as genuine. On lodging the FIR, the matter was registered with the CBI, Branch Jabalpur and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He accepted the procedure shown by the complainant. However, he has submitted that he raised the claim application and the vehicle was repaired with authorized repairing center of the insurance company and the payment was made to the repairing center directly. In support of his contention, Anant Kumar Agrawal (D.W.1) and H.S.Pollock (D.W.2) were examined.

4. The learned Special Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas his appeal was partly allowed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant did not argue on the merits of the case but, he has submitted that the applicant has faced the trial, appeal and the present revision since last 19 years. He is almost settled in his life. Now-a-days he is an old person, who is unable to reside in the jail. It was not the sole fault of the applicant. The overtact of the applicant was not so grave, so that he could be punished with the jail sentence. However, he remained in the custody for 3 days during the trial and thereafter, for 41 days during the revision. Looking to his custody period, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, [AIR 1986 SC 2192], “Manjur Faiju Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [AIR 1993 SC 2322] and “Nandlal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others”, [AIR 2010 SC 1875].

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the sentence awarded by the appellate Court appears to be appropriate.

8. Though the learned counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction on merits but, it is the duty of the C