Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/11080/2019 of SHARIF AHAMAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGHON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11080 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHARIF AHAMAD S/O MOHAMADD SHABIIR, AGEDABOUT 42 YEARS, 38, IQBALGANJ TEHSIL JAORA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAKESH VYAS - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH P.S. MADHAVNAGAR, UJJAIN(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred challenging the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by 8[th]Additional Sessions Judge,Ujjain, District Ujjain M.P in S.T No.536/2015 whereby the appellant/accusedhas been convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 1year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 1 month S.I.
2. The appellant/accused was tried for charges under Section 120-B/109of the IPC arising out of Crime No.476/2015 at Police Station Madhavnagar,District Ujjain in which the allegation against the appellant is that during the period of 2011 to 01.07.2015, the appellant has entered into the criminalconspiracy alongwith co-accused Rudra Pratap Singh to receive the money ofcommon people in their account through cheating.
3. Trial Court acquitted the appellant from section 109 of the IPC butconvicted him under Section 120-B of the IPC.
4. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order of conviction andsentence but learned counsel for the appellant Shri Anurag Vyas has confinedhis arguments on the quantum of sentence only.
5. The learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported thejudgment of the trial Court and sentence also.
Perused the record of the trial Court.
6. Re-appreciating the evidences of all witnesses, the findings of the trialCourt regarding conviction of the appellants/accused under Section 109 of IPCdoes not call for interference hence, the conviction against appellant/accusedunder Section 109 of IPC is affirmed.
7. The appellant/accused Sharif Ahamad has already undergone a periodof 4 months 26 days i.e. from 24 September, 2015 to 19 February, 2016. Theend of justice would be achieved if the amount of fine is enhanced so that the recovered amount may be utilized to compensate the complainants.
8 . This appeal is partly allowed and conviction of appellant/accusedunder Section 120-B of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The finding of the trial courtregarding the sentence is modified to the period already undergone byenhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.21,000/- for payable within aperiod of 90 days from today.
9. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shallundergo the remaining period of sentence of 7 months 13 days.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned fornecessary compliance.
11. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
VS
(GAJENDRA SINGH)JUDGE