Partly allowed

Purushottam v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh HC16 Jan 2023/990/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court partly allowed the petition maintaining conviction under IPC 325 but reduced jail time already served and enhanced the fine to Rs.6,000, directing Rs.5,000 to the injured.

What did the court decide?

Jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.6,000 with Rs.5,000 directed to injured; bail bond discharged subject to fine payment.

Purushottam Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Madhya Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ON THE 16^th OF JANUARY, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 990 of 2014

¶5

BETWEEN:-

¶6

PURUSHOTTAM S/O DHANJI, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MALAWAR P.S.MALAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶7

.....APPLICANT

¶8

(BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU.P.S.MALAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

¶11

.....NON-APPLICANT/STATE

¶12

( BY SHRI GOVIND RAI PUROHIT - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶13

This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present revision is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.08.2014 passed by ASJ, Biora, District Rajgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.202/2012, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 06 months RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already undergone jail sentence of about 11 days and the incident had taken place in the Signature Not Verified year 2010. During this period, applicant was on bail and he did not misuse the Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 1/17/2023 11:53:32 A M liberty granted by the Court. He further maintained good record and no purpose

¶17

2 would be served in sending the applicant to jail after such a prolong period. He has prayed that his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be enhanced.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration that the applicant has already undergone jail sentence of 11 days and has maintained good criminal record during trial and during pendency of the revision petition, no purpose would be served in sending the applicant to jail, after such long period, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained and the jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount may be enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.6,000/-, out of the said fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the injured Kaluram.

¶19

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount of Rs.6,000/- shall be deposited within 02 months from today. Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the injured Kaluram by the Trial Court. The bail bond stand discharged subject to deposit of enhanced fine amount. In case of failure of payment of enhanced fine amount within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall suffer the jail sentence awarded by the court below.

¶20

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

¶21

Shruti

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 1/17/2023 11:53:32 A M

Purushottam v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases