Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 489
Mrs. Manjusha Namjoshi, J.
Raju @ Rajiv Sharma, Advocate v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 459 of 2006 (J); Decided on 10.4.2006.*
Vivek Rusia for applicant; Arup Das, Penal Lawyer for the State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 389 -- generally conviction should not be stayed though sentence may lie stayed -- accused an Advocate -- Bar Council not taking any action to disqualify him on conviction -- conviction cannot be stayed. (1995) 2 SCC 513 distinguished. [Para 4
(2) Words and Phrases -- word sentence -- means "punishment given by a law Court: a jail/prison/custodial sentence." [Para 6
(3) Words and Phrases -- word imprisonment -- means putting an accused in prison. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary relied on. [Para 6
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 389 -- sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court -- is a sentence -- direction of Court that a person shall be confined in Court premises till Court rises -- constitute imprisonment. AIR 1945 Mad. 313 relied on. [Paras 6 & 7
(5) Words and Phrases -- words "till the rising of the Court "and" for" one day" -- there is no practical difference because day in this context does not mean 24 hours or does not even include night -- day here means lockup time -- 5 p.m. in winter and 6 p.m. ill summer -- if accused is sentenced for one day -- he should be released before lockup time. Lexicon Digest, 1990 Edn. p. 728 by Mulchandani relied on. [Para 6
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 389& &lk/kkj.kr% nks"kflf) jksdh ugha tkuk pkfg,] Hkys gh naMkns‘k jksdk tk ldrk gS& &vfHkqDr ,d vf/koDrk& &fl)nks"k Bgjk, tkus ij fof/kK ifjkn us mls fujfgZr djus ds fy, dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh& &nks"kflf) jksdh ugha tk ldrhA ¼1995½ 2 ,l lh lh 513 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 4½
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;& &‘‘kCn ^naMkns‘k*& &rkRiZ gS ^^U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k tsy@dkjkxkj@vfHkj{kk ds naM dk naMkns‘k**A ¼iSjk 6½
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;& &‘‘kCn ^dkjkokl*& &rkRiZ gS ^^vfHk;qDr dks dkjkxkj esa j[kuk**A vkWDlQksMZ ,MokULM yuZlZ fMD"kujh voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6½
¼4½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 389& &Uk;ky; mBus rd dkjkokl dk naMkns‘k& &naMkns‘k gS& &Uk;ky; dk funsZ‘k fd O;fDr U;k;ky; mBus rd U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ifj#) jgsxk& &dkjkokl xfBr djrk gSA , vkb vkj 1945 enzkl 313 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
¼5½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;& &‘‘kCn ^^U;k;ky; mBus rd** ,d fnu ds fy,**& &Okogkfjd varj ugha gS D;ksafd bl lanHkZ esa fnu ls rkRi;Z 24 ?kaVs ugha vFkok jkf= Hkh lfEefyr ugha gSa& &;gka fnu ls rkRi;Z ^gokykr le;* gS& &"khrdky esa 5 cts vijkà& &;fn vfHk;qDr ,d fnu ds fy, naMkfn"V fd;k tkrk gS& &mls gokykr le; ls iwoZ fueqZDr dj nsuk pkfg,A ewypankuh d`r ysDlhdksu MkbtsLV 1990 laLdj.k i`B 728 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6½
1. This revision by accused/applicant is under section 397/401 CrPC. The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 1405/2005 for an offence under section 324/34 and was sentenced to undergo sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month. The judgment was of 20.2.2006. The case was pending since 1977. On appeal being preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court, Khandwa on 1.3.2006 it was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 65/2006. The accused moved an application for suspension of sentence and conviction both. The Sessions Court declined to stay the conviction and sentence saying that there is no jail sentence imposed on the accused.
2. The accused is before this Court is revision seeking the relief of stay of conviction and sentence.
3. Parties heard, record perused.
4. It is established law that generally conviction should not be stayed though sentence may be stayed. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Nagar and others [(1995) 2 SCC 513]. There is nothing on record to show that the Bar Council of M.P. has taken any action to disqualify the accused who is professionally an Advocate. Therefore, there is no exceptional ground or circumstance where conviction should be suspended.
5. The Sessions Judge Khandwa has in his order in order-sheet dated 2.3.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2006 Raju v. State stated that since the sentence till rising of the Court is not jail sentence, it need not he suspended under section 389 CrPC.
6. On perusal of section 389 CrPC it reveals that the section does not speak about jail sentence but of imprisonment. The dictionary meaning of the word sentence is 'punishment given by a law Court: a Jail/prison/custodial sentence'. The meaning of the word "imprisonment" means 'putting an accused in prison (Oxford Advances Learners Dictionary). A sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court is a sentence which is in accordance with law. A direction by the Court that a person shall be confined in the Court premises till the Court rises constitute imprisonment within the meaning of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Muthu Nadar's case AIR 1945 Mad. 313. Mulchandani in his estimed law Lexicon Digest 1990 Edition, Vol. 1 Page 728 explains the meaning of the words "till the rising of the COUl1 and for "one day" like this: "There is no practical difference because 'day' in this context does not mean 24 hours or does not even include 'night'. 'Day' here means 'Lockup time' which is generally 5 p.m. in the winter and 6 p.m. in the summer. If a convict is ordered to undergo sentence of one day, he must be released before lockup time from the prison." The words imprisonment, confinement and detention have also been examined in the said book. They respectively mean conviction and the last two means without conviction. Therefore, the last two may prove to be unlawful also.
7. In the present case the revisionist is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court, the Sessions Judge Khandwa said that it is no jail sentence and hence, it cannot be suspended under section 389 CrPC since sentence till rising of the Court amounts to curtailment of liberty of an accused, such sentence can be suspended by the Court exercising the powers under section 389 CrPC.
8. Thus, the Court below was not correct in refusing to suspend the sentence particularly looking to the nature of the offence under section 324 IPC.
9. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Though conviction is not suspended but sentence till rising of the Court is suspended subject to the furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 500/- to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court trying the said criminal appeal.
10. It appears that the case is of 1977 which was decided by JMFC Khandwa on 20.2.2006. Now the appeal is being filed by the accu
