The court upheld the conviction for violating prohibitive orders under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, modifying the sentence due to factual context.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4109 of 2025 GAMA KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vijay Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Jayesh Yadav - GA for the State.

(Heard on: 19.09.2025)

(Delivered on:23.09.2025)

ORDER This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 442 of the BNSS , 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of judgment dated 25.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.67/2025 by the court of Sessions Dewas arising out of judgment dated 21.03.2025 in RCT No.260/2019 by J.M.F.C. Dewas whereby conviction under section 14 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam , 1990 and the conviction of 1 year RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-

with default stipulations has been affirmed.

2. Revision petitioner was prosecuted convicted and sentenced for violating the order dated 29.10.2018 in case no.0081/Jilabadar/2018 by District Magistrate, Dewas under section 5 (b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam , 1990 whereby the revision petitioner was prohibited to enter the boundary of District Dewas and nearby Districts of Indore, Ujjain, Shajapur, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT Sehore, Harda, Khandwa and Khargone.

3. Reader in the office of Collector, Dewas Rajendra Pandey (PW-3)

has proved the order dated Exhibit-P/3 passed by the District Magistrate, Dewas and service of the order on revision petitioner vide Exhibit-P/4 and Head Constable Rampratap Singh (PW-4), Sub-Inspector Mahavir Sharma (PW-6) Head Constable Rajesh Patel has proved the fact that revision petitioner was found at 9:50 a.m. of 22.01.2019 at Bus Stand, Dewas and he was apprehended vide Exhibit-P/1 by Sub-Inspector Mahavir Sharma (PW-

6).

4. The defense of the revision petitioner was that notice was not served or he was not found at the Bus Stand, Dewas have no substance and trial court and appellate court didn't commit any error in convicting the review petitioner under section 14 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam , 1990 hence the conviction is hereby affirmed.

5. Now come to the question of sentence. The punishment under section 14 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam , 1990 is reproduced below:-

14. Penalty for contravention of directions under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 or 13.

"- If any person opposes or disobeys or fails to confirm to any direction issued under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 or 13 or abets opposition to or disobedience of any such direction he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not, except for reasons to be recorded in writing, be less than four months, and shall also be liable to fine."

6. Facts of the case are general and the purpose would be served if he is sentenced for a period of 6 months hence, the revision petition is partly Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT allowed. Affirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 14 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam , 1990, his sentence is modified and it is reduced from RI of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- to 6 months RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-.