Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed against thejudgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by the High Court ofChhattisgarh, whereby theHigh Court has upheld the order passed bythe Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur and the order passed by the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Dhamtari.
Brief Facts:
Ambika Prasad wasthe Director of the Company and the appellant was the AreaManager of the Company. The Company was engaged in theactivity of collecting money through its agents by deposits like aBank and assured to give 8 to 10% annual interest to thedepositors. Upon maturity when the return of deposits was askedwith interest, it was denied and later the Company was closed.The complainant namely Ajay Kumar Meenwalfiled a written complaint against Ambika Prasadand the appellant for deceiving him and thepublic at large under the guise of wrong information, that theirCompany is recognized by Reserve Bank of India. They inducedthe depositors offering attractive return, but on taking depositthe amount of such deposit was not returned at the time ofmaturity and their deposit amount is misappropriated. The TrialCourt convicted the accused persons for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with 120B and 420 read with 120 B of IPC as the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court upheld the judgment.While partially allowing the revision, the High Court ordered that the sentences so given run concurrently.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated thatthe High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality orpropriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed,and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferiorcourt.
SC further stated that the object of the provision is to set right a patent defector an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfoundederror which is to be determined on the merits of individual case.It is also well settled that while considering the same, therevisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts andevidence of the case to reverse those findings.
SC relied upon the case of O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v.State ofKerala & Ors., where it was observed that:
“20. Under Section 31 CrPC it is left to the full discretion of the court to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion to issue directions for concurrent running of sentences, favouring the benefit to be given to the accused. Whether a direction for concurrent running of sentences ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised along the judicial lines and not mechanically.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “In our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.”
Case Title: Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
Bench: J. Indira Banerjee and J. J.K. Maheshwari
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915 OF 2022
Decided on: 5th July, 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments