The court confirms the conviction but reduces the sentence for reasons of time served and the age of the accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 422 of 2006 HARI PRASAD Versus STATE OF M.P.

Appearance:

Shri Bhavya Sharma, Advoate for petitioner.

Shri Harish Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2006 affirming the judgment dated 16.01.2006 passed by learned JMFC, Chachoda in Cr.Case No.441 of 2003 whereby, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/accused was posted as Committee Manager at Seva Sahkari Simiti, Tulsakhedi and Kaikdya from 22.10.1997 to 31.12.1998. During the said period, an amount of Rs.1,64,566 has been deposited and there is deficit of Rs.14,866 which was misappropriated by petitioner. Similarly, in the head of amount regarding purchasing of DAP and Urea and furnitures, petitioner has misappropriated the amount of Rs.56,504/- and

81,370/- Accordingly, the offence has been registered against the petitioner. 3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused before JMFC Chachoda, District Guna where charges were framed under section 409 of IPC. The petitioner abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses while the defence has Signature Not Verified examined one witness Radharaman Sharma (DW-1). Learned trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record and conclusion of trial, convicted petitioner/accused under section 409 of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein above. Petitioner has challenged the same before First Appellate Court but same was dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged during the course of arguments that he is not challenging the finding of trial court so far as conviction of petitioner/accused under Section under 409 of IPC is concerned. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner had remained in custody for about 47 days during trial i.e. from 31.3.2006 to 17.5.2006. The petitioner has been facing trial since last 19 years. He is aged about 74 years. Fine amount as imposed by the trial court has already been deposited by the petitioner. Hence, prayed that while awarding sentence, a lenient view may be adopted and his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. Learned counsel for the state has formally opposed the prayer.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and the recorded evidence, it is concluded that the findings recorded by both the courts below in convicting the petitioner-accused under section 409 of IPC are based on proper reasoning. Hence, conviction of the petitioner-accused is hereby confirmed. So far as the sentence awarded to the petitioner-accused is concerned, he has already suffered jail sentence for about 47 days. Hence, the prayer made by the petitioner appears to be reasonable. It is therefore ordered that his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody with fine as awarded by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.

7. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.

8. With the above modification, this revision stands disposed of.