S v. Singh S/o Dulare Singh Aged About 59 Years, Assistant Manager
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1643 of 1998 S. V. Singh S/o Dulare Singh Aged About 59 Years, Assistant Manager (Finance) Wages Zone - 3, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai (Retired) Resident of Sukh Ankush Maitri Kunj Rishali Thana Rishali, Bhilai, District Durg (Madhya Pradesh). (Now Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.14 14:23:44 +0530 03.07.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 21.07.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur in Special Case No.07/1994, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (2 counts) Under Section 468/471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months, (2 counts) Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 02 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/-. in default of payment of fine further RI for 02 months. Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.700/-. in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was functioning as Assistant Manager (Finance) Wages Zone-3 during the period January, 1990 to February, 1991 in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai and in the capacity of Public Servant entered into criminal conspiracy R.N. Singh and R.K.Gupta who were also functioning in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai during the said period and they cheated the Bhilai Steel Plant to the tune of Rs.4774.30/-, which was received by one R.K.Gupta, who was Technician RED-I BSP Bhilai for leave encashment although no leave encashment for an amount of Rs.4774.30/- was due to R.K.Gupta not it was sanctioned. Thereafter, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present appellant. 3 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before jurisdictional criminal Court. The applicant 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, this appeal. 5. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a Senior citizen of 90 years of age and is bed-ridden as well, as such, she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument to the sentence part only. She further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of one day, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 1990, i.e. for about 35 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. To buttress her 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 485 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the 4 respondent/CBI has opposed the prayer made by learned Senior Advocate and submitted that the appellant has 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 he could not dispute the fact that the appellant is old man aged about 90 years of age and is now bed ridden. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. As the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his 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. The offence is said to have taken place way back in the year 1990-1991. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 (2 counts) Section 468/471 read with Section 34, Section 477A read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 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). When the FIR was lodged against the appellant, the appellant 5 was aged about 59 years in the year 1991 and now after lapse of about 31 years, he would be aged about 90 years. It has been further informed that the appellant is bed ridden because of his age related situations and as such, this Court is of the opinion that instead of imposing jail sentence, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the appellant be imposed with sentence to the period already undergone by him and to enhance the fine amount. 10. 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.” 11. 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. 6 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 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” 12. 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” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the there is no other criminal antecedent of the appellant except the present one and as on date, he is aged about 90 years and he is now bed-ridden, is facing the lis since 1990 i.e. almost 35 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the 7 period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount imposed upon him. 14.
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, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judge while convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC (2 counts), under Section 468/471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 477A read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while enhancing the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for each offence, in addition to what has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 15. It is made clear that the enhanced fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (for each offence) shall be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court concerned within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in 8 view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 17. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Preeti Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice