Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Malkeet Singh Gill – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 800 of 2021)
Decided on : 05-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Sections 120B and 420 read with Section 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 397 read with Section 31 – Cheating, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust by public servant – Conviction and sentence – There are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of material and evidence brought on record – High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise jurisdiction alike to appellate Court and scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow – Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court – Object of provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law – There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on merits of individual case – While considering the same, Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon facts and evidence of case to reverse those findings – Finding of fact as recorded by Trial Court and Appellate Court has rightly not been interfered while maintaining conviction against appellant – On the issue of sentence also direction as issued by High Court is in consonance with provisions of Section 31 of Cr.P.C which confer full discretion to Trial Court as well as Appellate Court to order sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences – There is no infirmity in order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 10 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Cr. R No. 95 of 2005, whereby High Court has upheld order dated 29.01.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2004 and the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.C. No.1589 of 2003. While convicting the appellant for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Trial Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 04 years, 07 years, 01 year and 02 years respectively along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively.
Findings of Court:
As per settled legal position and after conviction by Trial Court and the Appellate Court on filing the revision High Court maintained the conviction upholding findings of the two courts. High Court found the finding recorded by the two Courts to serve the sentence consecutively by the appellant and the other co-accused were not correct, set aside and directed to run such sentence concurrently.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Cr. R No. 95 of 2005, whereby the High Court has upheld the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2004 and the order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in C.C. No.1589 of 2003. While convicting the appellant for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120-B and 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), the Trial Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 04 years, 07 years, 01 year and 02 years respectively along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court directed to serve the sentences one after the other. The High Court while allowing the Revision in part directed that sentences so awarded shall run concurrently.
3. The facts briefly put are that, one Ambika Prasad was the Director of the Company namely Revanchal Vitta and Commercial Vikas Limited Company (herein after referred to as 'the Company') and the appellant/accused No.2 was the Area Manager of the Company. The Company was engaged in the activity of collecting money through its agents by deposits like a Bank and assured to give 8 to 10% annual interest to the depositors. The passbook and ledger accounts were also kept and maintained by the Company with respect to deposits. The money deposit receipts were also given to the depositors. The depositors have made deposits with intent to earn interest, as promised. Upon maturity when the return of deposits was asked with interest, it was denied and later the Company was closed. Alleging said fact, the complainant namely Ajay Kumar Meenwal filed a written complaint on 12.06.1998 against Ambika Prasad and the appellant/accused No.2 for deceiving him and the public at large under the guise of wrong information, that their Company is recognized by Reserve Bank of India. They induced the depositors offering attractive return, but on taking deposit the amount of such deposit was not returned at the time of maturity and their deposit amount is misappropriated. On the complaint, as per allegations, initially offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered. Upon further investigation, the passbook, receipt, ledger accounts etc. were seized, statements of witnesses were recorded and offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC were added.
4. The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120-B of IPC and examined 24 prosecution witnesses. After detailed deliberation and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with 120-B and 420 read with 120- B of IPC as the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved, the appellant and other co-accused challenged their conviction before Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction and sentences as directed by the Trial Court.
5. Assailing the order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, appellant and the other co-accused filed Criminal Revision Nos.95 of 2005 & 89 of 2006. The High Court maintained the conviction with the observation that commission of an offence under Section 409 of IPC has been proved because the agents were functioning under the instructions of the appellant. The depositors deposited the amount under a trust which has been breached by not refunding the same by the company. Thus, the Court while affirming the finding to prove the guilt of charge under Section 420 IPC also maintained the conviction for an offence under Section 409 IPC assign
High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise jurisdiction alike to appellate Court and scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow.
The court ruled that once a judgment attains finality, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct clerical errors; substantive modifications require specific procedural grounds.
The court affirmed that dishonoured cheques can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and concurrent sentences may be ordered based on the nature of the transactions....
Sentences for distinct transactions under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
Court can use discretion under Section 427 of CrPC to allow concurrent sentences in cases arising from similar transactions, particularly for financial offences without violence.
The benefit of concurrent sentences cannot be sought through a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the judgments of conviction and sentences have attained finality in different cases.
The court held that sentences for dishonored cheques can run concurrently if they relate to a single consolidated debt, supported by judicial discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Proc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
