… 1 … IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2011. Shri S. A. Ravi, S/o Annamalai Aged about 42 years, R/o No.264, 1st Cross, Further Extension, Vivek Nagar, Bangalore Lodged in Central Jail, Aguada, Aguada, Goa. Presently in Central Prison Bangalore. .. Appellant Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation Having their office at Altinho, Panaji, Goa. R/by Senior Public Prosecutor C.B.I. .. Respondent Mr. Ramanuj Singh and Mr. T. George John, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. J. Vaz, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date : 18 th April, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. … 2 … 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the sentences imposed on him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.64/S/2001/A. 3. The appellant is accused no.2 in Criminal Case No.64/S/2001/A pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama against the two accused. Initially, the chargesheet was filed against five accused and accused no.5 Shri A. B. Furtado expired during the pendency of criminal case and accused no.4 T. Rameshan was discharged. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, considering the circumstances of the case and that punishment for the offences being 7 years and more, submitted the proceedings to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in terms of Section 325 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 1st February, 2010. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao by order dated 5th April, 2010 sentenced the appellant / accused as follows : … 3 … Sr. No. Sections of I.P.C. Sentence 1) 420 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment 2) 467 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment 3) 468 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment 4) 471 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment 5) 120B 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that all the sentences shall run consecutively in terms of Section 31 of Cr.P.C. and further ordered that the period of detention undergone by the appellant/ accused be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 5. Initially, the appellant herein filed revision application to the Additional Sessions Court at South Goa, Margao, which was partly allowed. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 12th November, 2010 inter alia held that the revision application was maintainable. The learned Judge set aside the period of sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. The said judgment and order was challenged before this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.1/2011. By order dated 17th January, 2011, I held that the … 4 … revision application filed by the appellant herein before the Sessions Court, was not maintainable and consequently, set aside the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. However, liberty was given to the appellant to file appeal before this Court challenging the order imposing sentences on the appellant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao since the said order is appelable in terms of Section 375(b) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said liberty, the appellant filed present appeal with an application for condonation of delay. After condoning the delay, the appeal was admitted. Since there was serious dispute as to the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the appellant, this Court by order dated 24th February, 2011 directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao to decide the period of set off which the accused is entitled to in Criminal Case No.64/S/2001/A. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has forwarded to this Court order dated 16th March, 2011, which has been passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides. 6. Perusal of the order dated 16th March, 2011 discloses that in Criminal Case No.64/S/2001/A the appellant … 5 … was in custody for the period from 31st January, 2001 to 23rd October, 2003 and for the period from 11th August, 2006 to 5th April, 2010 on which date, order imposing sentences was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentences imposed on the appellant/ accused are excessive and as such, the accused/ appellant deserves leniency. He further submitted that the appellant having been convicted and sentenced under Section 467 of I.P.C. could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. Learned Counsel further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case in which the appellant deserves leniency. 8. Per contra, Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences committed, the appellant does not deserve any leniency and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the appellant having been convicted and sentenced under Section 467 of I.P.C. could not have been … 6 … convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. In so far as the submission of Mr. Singh and the concession made by Mr. Vaz that the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C. after having been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 467 of I.P.C. is concerned, I find that the same deserves to be accepted. The appellant once having been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 467, could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 471 of Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. As such in terms of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the appellant has to undergo sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 8 years and 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that as on the date … 7 … on which the sentence was imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate i.e. on 5th April, 2010, the appellant / accused was in custody for a period of 6 years, 4 months and 18 days. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the sentences imposed on the appellant in so far as Sections 420, 467, 468 are concerned cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference by this Court. However, considering the period for which the appellant has been in custody, I deem it appropriate to set aside separate sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 120B of I.P.C. In other words, the appellant shall undergo the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years for the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced. The period of detention of 6 years 4 months and 18 days which has undergone by the appellant till the date of sentence shall be set off against the total sentence of 8 years imposed on the appellant. It is made clear that the appellant will have to undergo remaining sentence in jail at Goa. 12. The appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid … 8 … terms. 13. Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent states that Criminal Case No.64/S/2001/A is pending against the two accused namely Mohammad Ali- A1 and K. N. M. Jeffry-A3. Considering that the Criminal Case is more than 10 years old, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to dispose of the said Criminal Case expeditiously and in any case on or before 30th April, 2012. 14. Registry to ensure that Record and Proceedings are sent back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama expeditiously. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA