Smt.Sosan Minz, W/o Home Singh Thakur, Aged 44 years, Postal Assistant (under suspension) Head v. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2822 of 1999 Smt.Sosan Minz, W/o Home Singh Thakur, Aged 44 years, Postal Assistant (under suspension) Head Post Office, Ambikapur, Resident of Darri Para, Fulwari Road, P.S. Ambikapur, District – Surguja (M.P.) --- Appellant versus The State of Madhya Pradesh through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur. (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddhiqui, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate, as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Along with CRA No. 2850 of 1999 Rajesh Peshwai @ Rajendra Kumar Peshwani, son of Madhavda Peshwani, aged about 22 years, sales-man R/o- Deviganj Road, near (behind) Maharaja Hotel, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (M.P.) ---Appellant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur. (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate, as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 19:13:41 +0530 31.07.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 1. The present criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 06.10.1999 passed by 2 learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur in Special Case No.34/1996, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 468/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 477A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Atmaram Jangde (died), was posted as Ledger Clerk at the Head Post Office, Ambikapur in July 1993, and the co-accused, Sosan Minz, was posted as Counter Clerk at the said Head Post Office. Both the aforesaid accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Head Post Office, Ambikapur, conspired with co-accused Rajesh Peshwani. Pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, they targeted the R.D. Account No. 33779 of account holder Mohammad Suleman Ansari, which was opened for Rs.1,500/- monthly deposits through an agent, Puri Peshwani, who is the mother of co-accused Rajesh Peshwani. It was co-accused Rajesh Peshwani who used to collect 3 Rs.1,500/- from the account holder Mohammad Suleman Ansari and deposit the same at the Head Post Office, Ambikapur. However, only Rs.6,000/- had actually been deposited in the said account, but, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the deceased accused Atmaram Jangde made false entries in the forged ledger card and, on the basis of forged withdrawal slips (Exhibit P-2 dated 09.07.1993 and Exhibit D-1), co-accused Rajesh alias Rajendra Peshwani submitted withdrawal slips, on which co-accused Sosan Minz wrote “S.S. Agro” and signed, which were thereafter authenticated by deceased accused Atmaram Jangde. In this manner, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, the accused persons fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.46,830/- from the account of Mohammad Suleman Ansari (Account No. 33779) by using forged withdrawal slips, thereby utilizing forged documents as genuine, falsifying accounts, and causing wrongful loss to the Head Post Office, Ambikapur, to the tune of Rs.46,830/-. Thereafter, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the appellants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before jurisdictional criminal Court. The appellants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, these appeals. 5. Learned respective counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants Smt. Sosan Minz and Rajendra Kumar Peshwani are 71 years and 54 years of age, respectively, as such, they do not want to press these appeals on merits and confines their argument to 4 the sentence part only. It is further submitted that the appellants have remained in custody for not a single day but they have deposited the fine amount imposed upon them, and they are facing the criminal proceedings since 1994, i.e. for about 31 years. Looking to the age of the appellants i.e. 71 years and 54 years, the jail sentence awarded to them may be considered as undergone by enhancing the fine amount as the appellants have already been suffered criminal proceedings since 31 years. To buttress their submissions, reliance has been placed upon the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Sundara Kumar v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilence and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, District Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 61, V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 458 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act’) as well as under the Indian Penal Code, but they could not dispute the fact that the appellants are old persons aged about 71 years and 54 years of age and they are facing the criminal proceedings since 31 years. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 5 8. As the learned respective counsel appearing for the appellants have confined their submissions with regard to the sentence part only, this Court does not wish to discuss the case on merits, so far as conviction part is concerned. 9. In the matter of S. Sundara Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that out of two years' sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to that of one year and one month rigorous imprisonment.” 10. In the matter of V.K. Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the 6 matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction” 11. In the matter of M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “10.Now coming to the question of sentence, the offence took place in the year 1981. All these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has also lost his job and has a large family to support. It is also stated that he has become sick and Infirm. He has been in jail for some time. For all these special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, we confirm the sentence of fine with default clause. Accordingly, subject to the modification of sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed” 12. The offence is said to have taken place way back in the year 1993-1994. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B, Section 468,471/120-B, Section 477A/120-B of the IPC and under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988/120-B of the IPC. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC, however, there is a minimum sentence of one year prescribed for the offence under the PC Act (as it then was). 13. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires 7 that when the FIR for alleged offence was lodged in the year 1994 against the appellants, they were aged about 40 years and 23 years and now after lapse of about 31 years, they would be aged about 71 years and 54 years, respectively. All these years, the appellants have undergone the agony of criminal proceedings till now and they have also lost their jobs and have a large family to support. It is also stated that appellants – Smt. Sosan Minz and Rajesh Peshwani @ Rajendra Kumar Peshwani have not served any jail sentence. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the extraordinary lapse of 31 years since the commission of the offence, the age of the appellants at the relevant time (40 and 23 years), the prolonged ordeal and mental agony they have faced due to protracted criminal proceedings, and the fact that the appellants have already suffered loss of employment and severe social and financial consequences, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met without requiring further incarceration. It is also relevant to note that, while the offences under the IPC provisions (Sections 420/120-B, 468,471/120-B, 477-A/120-B) do not carry any minimum sentence, the offence under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988/120-B of the IPC as it stood at the relevant time, prescribed a minimum sentence of one year. In view of this, and guided by the principles laid down by the 8 Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Sundara Kumar (supra), V.K. Verma (supra), and M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), wherein long passage of time, old age, ill-health, and prolonged litigation were treated as special reasons for reduction of sentence while maintaining conviction, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence rather than disturb the conviction. 15. Accordingly, in so far as appellants Smt. Sosan Minz and Rajesh Peshwani @ Rajendra Kumar Peshwani are concerned, while their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B IPC, 468,471/120-B IPC, 477-A/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988/120-B IPC stands affirmed, the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon them, though they have not undergone jail sentence for a single day but, considering the extraordinary lapse of 31 years since the offence, the prolonged mental agony suffered due to protracted proceedings, and the reformative rather than retributive approach of criminal justice. However, in order to maintain the deterrent element of punishment and ensure balance of equities, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall stand enhanced by Rs.2,000/- for each appellant in each offence, in addition to the fine already awarded by the trial Court. 16. It is made clear that the enhanced fine amount of Rs.2,000/- (for each offence) shall be deposited by the appellants, namely, Smt. 9 Sosan Minz and Rajesh Peshwani @ Rajendra Kumar Peshwani, before the trial Court concerned within a period of three months from today and the same shall be paid to Government Special School for Intellectually Retarded Girls, Gaganpur, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.), in addition to the amount already awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. It is Ordered accordingly. 17.
Decision
In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, is hereby affirmed. 18. Since the appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 19. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Preeti / Rajshekhar Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice