Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Navnitlal Prabhudas Thakkar, was convicted by the trial court for misappropriation of government money amounting to Rs. 23,495.10 by fabricating documents. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court in Appeal No. 12 of 2014. The applicant filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel submitted that the accused was now about 80 years old and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. He had already paid the fine amount before the trial court and was willing to pay an additional Rs. 50,000/- towards fine for all offences. The counsel fairly conceded that there were concurrent findings of the courts below and only argued for leniency. The State opposed the prayer, arguing that the accused had misappropriated government money and should undergo the sentence. The court noted that the evidence showed the Enquiry Officer had conducted an enquiry and found misappropriation, and the material allegations were proved by PW1 Narayan Bodkhe. However, considering the accused's old age and the fact that he had deposited Rs. 14,741.45 and could not deposit only Rs. 8,753.65, the court held that it would not be proper to send him to jail. The court modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while confirming the conviction. The court directed that the accused pay additional fine of Rs. 50,000/- within two months, failing which the sentence of imprisonment would revive.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Old Age and Payment of Fine - The accused, aged about 80 years, had already paid fine and offered additional Rs.50,000/-. The court, considering the age and the fact that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail, modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while confirming the conviction. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be modified on the ground of old age and payment of fine, given concurrent findings of guilt.
Final Decision
The conviction is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone. The applicant shall pay additional fine of Rs.50,000/- within two months, failing which the sentence of imprisonment shall revive.
Law Points
- Sentence modification on ground of old age
- concurrent findings not interfered
- leniency in sentence
- payment of fine as mitigating factor
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 148
Criminal Revision Application (REVN) No. 304 of 2006
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar for applicant, Shri V.P. Gangane for respondent/State
Navnitlal Prabhudas Thakkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against conviction and sentence for misappropriation of government money.
Remedy Sought
Modification of sentence of imprisonment on ground of old age and payment of fine.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court; he sought leniency in sentence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the applicant; Sessions Court in Appeal No. 12 of 2014 dismissed the appeal and confirmed conviction.
Issues
Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be modified on the ground of old age and payment of fine.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant's counsel: The accused is aged about 80 years, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail; he has already paid fine and is willing to pay additional Rs.50,000/-; concurrent findings are not challenged, only leniency is sought.
Respondent's counsel: The accused misappropriated government money by fabricating documents, so he should undergo the sentence as directed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
Considering the old age of the accused (about 80 years) and the fact that he had already paid fine and offered additional fine, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. The sentence of imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant (hereinafter referred as 'accused') and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.
Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that now the accused is aged about 80 years and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him in jail.
Shri Gangane, learned APP for the respondent/State has strongly objected the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the accused and submitted that the accused has misappropriated government money of Rs. 23,495.10 by fabricating the documents and, therefore, he is rightly convicted and he should undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court.
From the observations in para 19, it appears that the accused had shown one document which shows that he had deposited Rs.14,741.45 and could not deposit Rs.8,753.65.
The evidence on record shows that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and during the enquiry, he has found misappropriation of the amount by the accused.
Procedural History
The applicant was convicted by the trial court for misappropriation of government money. He appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal in Appeal No. 12 of 2014. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
