Devi Singh Rawat vs Ganpat Jatav

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14743
1 CRA-6130-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
th
ON THE 5 OF MAY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6130 of 2022
DEVI SINGH RAWAT
Versus
GANPAT JATAV
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal and
Ms.Bhavya Sharma - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Mahendra Singh Rawat - Advocate for the respondent No.1
ORDER
Appellant is challenging the quantum of fine imposed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior under judgment dt.19.12.2022 passed in
S.T.No.79/2009 for convicting him of the offence under Section 420 IPC and
sentencing him to 7 years R.I. and fine amount of Rs.13,50,000/- with default
stipulations.
2. The substantial facts that are undisputed between the parties are that
Ganpat, the complainant, had some land in village Devri which was acquired for
construction of canal by State and for this a compensation amount of
Rs.9,42,704/- was determined, however, this amount was received by appellant
Devi Singh on the basis of some Power of Attorney. It is not in dispute that
appellant had no authority or right to receive that compensation amount.
3. Complainant Ganpat filed a criminal complaint for prosecution of
appellant for the offence of Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section
3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. The trial Court framed the charges and recorded the evidence. After
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 5/8/2026
11:00:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14743
2 CRA-6130-2022
appreciating the facts and evidence, it held the appellant guilty of offence of

Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
4. Appellant contested the criminal trial claiming that the amount due to
complainant was duly paid by him in the presence of witnesses. The present
appeal was, although, filed for challenging the conviction and sentence on various
grounds, it was submitted in the course of final arguments by learned counsel for
appellant that period of sentence was already undergone by the appellant and
instead of challenging the finding of conviction, he was limiting his arguments on
the quantum of fine amount. He accordingly made a request to make it reasonable,
as for him, the fine imposed was disproportionate to the nature of crime and also
beyond the pecuniary resources of appellant. Thus, in this Criminal Appeal
though presented for challenging the finding of conviction and also the entire
sentence, the arguments of counsel for the appellant are restricted only on the
quantum of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent is opposing the appeal even on the
aspect of financial liability imposed on the judgment and a request has been made
to dismiss the appeal in its entirety.
6. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and record of the trial Court
has been perused.
7. The analysis of impugned judgment reflects that trial Court has given a
finding that under a document of Power of Attorney appellant received the
compensation amount on behalf of complainant - Ganpat but he never made its
payment to the complainant and thus acting dishonestly committed the offence of
cheating for an amount of Rs.9,42,704/-. Evidently, an angle of economic crime
was involved here and trial Court has given a finding that appellant, by
committing the offence of cheating, has received an unlawful gain to the tune of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 5/8/2026
11:00:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14743
3 CRA-6130-2022
Rs.9,42,704/-.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rachhpal Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (6)
SCC 462 and Manish Jalan Vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 8 SC 225 . In both these
cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, in awarding compensation, it is
necessary for the court to decide the amount of compensation by taking into
consideration the nature of crime, the injury suffered and the capacity of convict to
pay the compensation etc. Further, the amount so imposed must be reasonable and
not arbitrary and before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of
accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, inquiry in this behalf, even in
the summary way, may be necessary. It may be noted here that the case of
Rachhpal Singh (supra) was related to a murder trial while in the case of Manish
Jalan (supra), the court was deciding the quantum of compensation in a road
accident death case. Thus, clearly no economic crime was involved in either of
these cases. Hence, applying the ratio laid down in cases of different nature to a
case of the nature of economic offence would not be sustainable.
9. The offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is the most
common example of an economic offence, where the provision itself allows
imposition of fine/compensation to an amount much higher than the amount of the
dishonoured cheque and often than not the financial liability imposed on accused
in such a case exceeds the original cheque amount. Applying corollary of
restitutive justice to a case of offence of cheating, punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, it becomes necessary to direct the appellant-convict to repay to the
complainant the original amount involved in the crime, along with some additions
towards interest. Increasingly the courts are placing their emphasis on victimology
by holding that victims are unfortunate and forgotton people in criminal justice
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 5/8/2026
11:00:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14743
4 CRA-6130-2022
delivery system as they are the worst sufferers who suffered loss of reputation,

humiliation, finances etc. and since criminal justice delivery system aims at doing
justice to all, it would remain incomplete if adequate compensation to the victim
is not granted. Thus, this Court too endorses this established principle that in an
economic crime restitutive justice is an integral part of sentencing which cannot be
questioned if conviction for an economic offence is itself not under challenge.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has made a submission that on account of
poor financial capacity, the appellant is not able to pay the fine imposed by the
trial court. Here appellant is not challenging the finding given against him by the
trial Court that he cheated the complainant by fraudulently obtaining the
compensation amount which was due to be paid to the complainant and it is also
not under challenge that the amount so received by appellant was never repaid to
the complainant. An accused receiving monetary benefit of a huge amount cannot
convince the court at any stage that he does not have sufficient means to repay the
amount wrongfully received by him on behalf of some other person. If such pleas
are accepted in economic offence, the people committing financial fraud will get
away with not paying back what they stole just by saying they have no money,
and the justice system will fail as victims/institutions will never see their money
again because no criminal would ever admit they are rich enough to pay it back.
We can imagine the varied nature of such kind of cases; they may be of tax
evasion, money laundering, foreign exchange violation, SEBI crimes, organized
crimes etc. In the backdrop of the nature of crimes involved, the requirement of an
enquiry about the financial status of accused of any such crime, before deciding
the quantum of fine amount, is to be answered surely and certainly in negative.
11. Summing up the discussion, it is held that appellant, who is challenging
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 5/8/2026
11:00:14 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14743
5 CRA-6130-2022
only the quantum of fine in this appeal, has not been able to successfully prove

that the sentence of imposition of fine and also the quantum of fine imposed
deserve the indulgence of this Court. The appeal has not been argued on any other
grounds. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
12. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its
record for information and necessary compliance. Let another copy be sent to the
concerned Jail Authority for necessary information.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 5/8/2026
11:00:14 AM