Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001
1 CRA-930-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 930 of 2012
VINOD TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anil Upadhayay - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.) in Session Trial No.06/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.500/-; R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.500/-; R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.250/-; and R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.250/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.07.09, Lal Bahadur Bauddh (PW-3) was in charge of Traffic Police Station, Satna. On that day, the said Lal Bahadur Bauddh along with his staff was checking vehicles at Semriya intersection. Then, truck number HR/38-G/5310 was found going towards Panna. It was stopped and on checking it, it was found that the said truck was loaded with clinker suitable for cement manufacturing. However, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001 2 CRA-930-2012 15 tonnes of material, more than the capacity prescribed in the permit, was found loaded in the said truck. The truck driver introduced himself as Dharmendra Singh alias Dilawar Singh, resident of Rajiv Nagar, Gwalior, currently residing at Pawai, District Panna and presented a driving license in the name of Dharmendra Singh, on which the photograph of the presenting driver was affixed. Since the truck in question was loaded with 15 tonnes of weight more than the capacity prescribed in the permit, hence action was taken against the driver and the truck owner under Section 113/194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the relevant truck was parked at Traffic Police Station, Civil Line, Satna.
3 . A complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Satna under Section 113/194 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by the Traffic Police Station, Civil Lines, Satna against the driver of the truck in question, who identified himself as Dharmendra Singh, and the truck owner Himanshu Saini, where the truck driver did not admit his guilt, but instead submitted an application for taking custody of truck. The application form was submitted in the name of Dharmendra Singh only. Meanwhile, Traffic Police Station in-charge Lal Bahadur Baudh (PW-3) received information that the driving licence presented by the driver of the relevant vehicle in the name of Dharmendra Singh was not genuine but a forged one. The driver's real name was not Dharmendra Singh but Vinod Tiwari. Ultimately, the driver Vinod Tiwari, who is the accused in the case, was seriously interrogated and he admitted that he was indeed Vinod Tiwari and held a separate driving licence in the name of Vinod Tiwari. Thus, it became clear that on the relevant date Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001 3 CRA-930-2012 that the accused Vinod Tiwari, by posing as Dharmendra Singh and presenting a driving licence in the name of Dharmendra Singh, committed a fraudulent act and attempted to deceive the police officials and was successful in doing so. Then, on the instructions of the said Lal Bahadur Baudh, in-charge of Traffic Police Station Satna, constable Tamendra Singh Baghel (PW-4) of the same police station submitted a written report of the entire incident vide Ex.P-2 to Police Station, Civil Line, Satna. On the basis of which Sub-Inspector R.P. Sharma (PW-5) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/3) and registered a case against the accused under Crime No. 316/2009 under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent court, which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions and from where it was received by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.) for trial.
5. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charges against appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC, which he denied and claimed for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses, namely, Babulal Patel (PW-1), Narayan Prasad Namdeo (PW-2), Lalbahadur Baudh (PW-3), Tamendra Singh (PW-4), R.P. Sharma (PW-5), and placed Ex.P/1 to P/8 the documents on record.
7. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
The defence of accused is of false implication, however he did not examine Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001 4 CRA-930-2012 any witness in his defence.
8. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC are found to be proved against the accused/appellant and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellant.
9. At the outset it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that present appellant was 27 years of age at the time of commission of offence. It is also submitted that the incident is of the year 2009 and since then he is facing the agony of trial. He remained in custody for 09 months and 22 days as per the custody report dated 06.03.2026. He is the first offender as per para 28 of the impugned judgment. There is no criminal antecedents against him. He remained cooperative before the learned Trial Court and before this Court in this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount suitably.
10. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001 5 CRA-930-2012 the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC. Therefore, findings of conviction for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC are upheld.
13. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; evidence on record; taking into account the age of accused/ appellant, who was 27 years of age at the time of commission of offence; he remained in custody for 09 months and 22 days as per the custody report dated 06.03.2026; he is the first offender as per para 28 of the impugned judgment having no criminal antecedents; he has been facing agony of trial since 2009; and he was on bail during the trial and the pendency of this appeal but he never misused the liberty so granted, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of appellant to the period already undergone by him, the fine amount under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- each and fine amount under Sections 471 and 474 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.2500/- each.
1 4 . Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- each and fine amount under Sections 471 and 474 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.2500/- each, which shall be deposited by him within a period of 60 days from today. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26001 6 CRA-930-2012
15. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of 60 days from today, he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
16. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE DV Signature Not Verified Signed by: DINESH VERMA Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:29:17