1 2025:CGHC:39266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1236 of 1999 Kishor D.Badodariya, Son of Dayalal Badodariya, Aged about 54 years, Occupation - Business, Resident of 9.C/29-303, Shanti Nagar, Meera Road, Mumbai (M.H.) ... Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Through : Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (M.P.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate, as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 06.08.2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 20.04.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur (M.P.) in Special Criminal Case No.22/1986, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 17:46:37 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01 year. Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (In short, ‘PC Act’) Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01 year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. In the present case, the co-accused, namely, B. Bhushan, who was also convicted by the trial Court, had also preferred an appeal, i.e CRA No. 1186/1999 and the said criminal appeal was ordered to be abated vide order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on account of the fact that the said co-accused died during the pendency of this appeal. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR (Ex.P-41) under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, dated 30.04.1984 was lodged against the co-accused B. Bhushan and M/s B. K. Tools, alleging therein that co-accused B. Bhushan in the capacity of Public servant while posted as a Resident Officer in Bhilai Steel Plant in the year 1982 has committed cheating in Bhilai Steel Plant by entering into a criminal conspiracy with M/s B. K. Tools proprietor Kishor D. Badodariya (present appellant), for supply of non- standard bolts and nuts by misusing his position to give pecuniary advantage to M/s B. K. Tools and thereby caused loss of Rs. 3 25,440/- to Bhilai Steel Plant. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and charges were framed against the appellant and co-accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before jurisdictional criminal Court. The appellant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a Senior citizen aged about 79 years old and is bed-ridden as well. He further submits that appellant's both legs have been imputed as he is suffering from leprosy, as such, he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about one month, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 1986, i.e. for about 39 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Sundara Kumar v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilence and Anti- Corruption, Thoothukudi, District Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 61, V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of 4 Investigation, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent/CBI and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned State Counsel have opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offences under the P.C. Act as well as under the IPC, but they could not dispute the fact that the appellant is an old man aged about 79 years and his both legs have been imputed as he is suffering from leprosy. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 9. As learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions with regard to the sentence part only, this Court does not wish to discuss the case on merits, so far as conviction part is concerned. 10. In the matter of S. Sundara Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that out of two years' sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we 5 are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to that of one year and one month rigorous imprisonment.” 11. In the matter of V.K. Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction” 12. In the matter of M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “10.Now coming to the question of sentence, the offence took place in the year 1981. All these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has also lost his job and has a large family to support. It is also stated that he has become sick and Infirm. He has been in jail for some time. For all these special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, we confirm the sentence of fine with default clause. Accordingly, subject to the 6 modification of sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed” 13. The alleged incident is said to have taken place way back in the year 1982-1983. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the PC Act. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC, however, there is a minimum sentence of one year prescribed for the offence under the PC Act (as it then was). When the FIR was lodged against the appellant, the appellant was aged about 38 years in the year 1984 and now after lapse of about 41 years, he would be aged about more than 79 years. It has been further informed that the appellant is bed ridden because his both legs have been imputed as he is suffering from leprosy and as such, this Court is of the opinion that instead of imposing jail sentence, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the appellant be imposed with sentence to the period already undergone by him and enhance the fine amount. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there is no other criminal antecedent against the appellant except the present one and as on date, he is aged about 79 years and his both legs have been imputed as he is suffering from leprosy and he is now bed-ridden, further, he is facing the lis since 1986 i.e. almost 39 years, I am of the view that 7 the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount imposed upon him. 15. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.04.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Special Criminal Case No.22/1986, is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Special Judge while convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the PC Act, is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while enhancing the fine amount of Rs.3,000/- for each offence, in addition to what has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 16. It is made clear that the enhanced fine amount of Rs.3,000/- (for each offence) shall be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court concerned within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in 8 view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 18. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti