M.Cr.C. No. 4447/2014. Case: Sanjay Vs State of M.P.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberM.Cr.C. No. 4447/2014
CounselFor Appellant: Pradeep Katare, Counsel and For Respondents: Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer
JudgesGurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 235, 248, 325, 360, 360(4), 361, 482; Constitution of India - Article 47; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 304A, 376; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4; Public Gambling Act, 1867 - Section 13
Judgement DateJanuary 06, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

  1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 19.02.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No. 136/2013 by which the judgment passed by JMFC, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 1984/2011 has been upheld.

  2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 10.12.2011 Shri M.L. Mourya was posted as A.S.I. in Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri, who received an information from an informer that three persons are playing cards in the playground of Sadar Bazar School. On this information, Shri M.L. Mourya ASI along with H.C. Aslam Khan, Constable Praveen and Constable Arvind went on the spot and found that three accused persons namely Naresh, Pradeep and the applicant Sanjay were playing cards and an amount of Rs. 800/- was recovered from Naresh, Rs. 1,020/- from Pradeep and Rs. 280/- from the applicant and one packet of cards was also seized. The applicant and the other accused persons were arrested. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.

  3. The Trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act.

  4. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

  5. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2013, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too suffered dismissal vide order dated 19.02.2014.

  6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Revisional Court, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.

  7. The counsel for the applicant did not challenge the findings of the Courts below on merits. He merely confined his submissions that the applicant may be extended the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and he be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition.

  8. Per contra, the counsel for the State submitted that under Section 360 (4) of Cr.P.C., the High Court can extend the benefit only while exercising its powers of appeal or revision as an appellate court or as a revisional court. The prayer for extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..

  9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

  10. As the counsel for the applicant has not challenged the findings recorded by the courts below, therefore, the reference to the merits of the case are with a view to consider that whether the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicant or not.

  11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 261 has held as under:-

    "6. Whether the court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.

    While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

  12. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

  13. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice delivery system. The Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from Sub-section (2) of Section 235, Sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them.

    Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant.

    What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.

  14. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220], this Court held:

    15....Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime....

    Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 241], following Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra), states the principles of deterrence and retribution but the same cannot be categorized as right or wrong. So much depends upon the belief of the judges.

  15. In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 2 SCC 359], this Court opined:

    "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT