Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SURENDER KUMAR GARG
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1993
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (3) 900 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 359
JT 1993 (3) 369 1993 SCALE (2)960
ACT:
%
Indian Penal Code-Sections 419, 420, 408 and 471-Offence
under-Reduction of sentence Upon repayment of amount.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was charged with cheating the U.P. Industrial
Corporation of Rs. 39,352.50 by registering a take concern,
and taking in its name. Three courts concurrently found the
charges against him established.
On the question of sentence, it was contended that more than
20 %-cars had elapsed; the amount involved was not excessive
and other mitigating circumstances were placed (in the
record.
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD:1. The appellant had deposited Rs. 40,000/- (the loan
amount) as directed. (901-G)
2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
conviction maintained but sentence of imprisonment reduced
to the period already undergone, and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-,
or one month R.I. in lieu thereof. (902-B)
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 830 of
1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.85 of the Allahabad
High Court in Crl. Revision No. 1937 of 1983.
M.S. Gujral, A.K. Srivastava and Serva Mitter for the
Appellant.
R.C. Verma and A.S. Pundit.for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
901
N.P. SINGH.1. The appellant, was convicted under Sections
120-B, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code. lie was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for different
periods under the aforesaid Sections. The appeal filed on
behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the learned
additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The High Court, on
revision application being filed on behalf of the appellant
set-aside his conviction under Section 120-B, but the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
conviction and sentence under other Sections mentioned above
passed by the trial Court were affirmed.
According to the prosecution case, the appellant,
established a firm by the name of Seemak Industrial
Corporation at Ghaziabad. The account in the bank was
opened in the name of one Vijai Kumar and the aforesaid
Industrial Corporation was registered in the Sales Tax
Department. The appellant applied for loan before the U.P.
Small Industries Corporation and got a sum of Rs. 39,352.50,
in the name of Seemak Industrial Corporation. Later it was
discovered that the aforesaid Seemak Industrial Corporation,
was a fake concern and the appellant had cheated, even the
U.P. Small Industries Corporation, in respect of the amount
advanced by them. The Trial Court, the Appellate Court as
well as the High Court have gone into details of the
materials on record for purpose of holding, that the charges
framed against the appellant had been established and as
such there was no occasion to interfere with the conviction
and sentence passed against him.
So far the present appeal is concerned, leave was granted as
early as in the year 1985 by this Court, but it has been
listed for hearing after about 8 years. The learned
Counsel. appearing for the appellant, after some arguments
on merit confined his submissions to the question of
sentence only. lie pointed out that offences aforesaid had
been committed by the appellant, as early as in the year
1973, more than 20 years from now and as such a
compassionate view should be taken of the whole matter
especially when the amount in respect of which the offences
are alleged to have been committed is not excessive. He
pointed out that the appellant has remained in jail for some
time, in pursuance of the order of conviction and sentence
and as such he need not be sent to jail again. An affidavit
detailing the mitigating circumstances has also been filed
by the appellant before us. Taking all facts and
circumstances into consideration, by our order dated 26th
April, 1993 we directed the appellant to first deposit an
amount of Rs. 40,000 (the loan amount) with the U.P. Small
Industries Corporation Ltd. Pursuant to that order Rs.
40.000 has been deposited with the U.P. Small Industries
Corporation Ltd., on 4-5-1993 and original receipt granted
by the Manager of the said Corporation was produced before
us. The zerox copy, of the said original receipt has been
kept on record and the original returned to the learned
counsel for the appellant. An affidavit has also been filed
on behalf ’of the appellant stating about
902
the aforesaid deposit.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case while
maintaining the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the
sentence of imprisonment under different Sections mentioned
above to the period already undergone by him. The
appellant, shall however pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in
default of payment thereof, he shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. The appeal is
allowed in part.
The deposit of Rs. 40,000 made by the appellant with the
U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd., shall be adjusted
towards the amount advanced by the said Corporation to the
appellant. The Corporation shall of course be at liberty to
take steps for realisation of any further sum. which may be
due. against the appellant.
U.R. Appeal partly allowed.
903
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3