Karnataka High Court
The State By Lakshmipuram Police ... vs Smt. H P Bhanumathi on 22 August, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.A.No.224/2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
The State by Lakshmipuram
Police Station,
Mysore. ... Appellant
[By Sri.G.Bhavani Singh, State Public Prosecutor]
AND :
Smt.H.P.Bhanumathi,
W/o Sri.G.Prakash,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.2788/4, K-12,
Chamundipuram,
Mysore. ... Respondent
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 377
Cr.P.C. praying to modify the sentence dated
20.09.2011 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge,
Mysore, in Criminal Appeal No.3/2011 and impose
adequate sentence on the respondent for the offence
punishable under Section 417 of IPC. The
respondent/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default of payment fine. She shall
undergo S.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable
under Section 417 of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming for orders on this
day, the court delivered the following:
2
JUDGMENT
There has been delay of 48 days in filing this appeal. This appeal is by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the order regarding sentence passed by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the respondent - accused.
2. Before ordering issue of notice on the application filed for condonation of delay, I have heard learned State Public Prosecutor regarding the merits of the appeal. The respondent - accused was charge sheeted and tried in C.C.No.1575/2007 on the file of the JMFC-II Court, Mysore for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 181 of IPC inter alia alleging that by producing fake documents regarding his date of birth, the respondent obtained employment in Mysore Urban Development Authority as Second Division Assistant and when he was called upon to produce his original SSLC certificate to prove his date of birth, instead of producing the original document, he produced an affidavit sworn to before a Magistrate 3 showing her date of birth as 13.7.1961 though she was born on 22.2.1958 and thus she has committed the aforesaid offences. The trial Court, after full fledged trial, found the respondent guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Accordingly, she was convicted for those offences while she was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 181 IPC. The trial Court sentenced the respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- on each of the three counts. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed appeal before I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in Crl.A.No.3/2011. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal in part whereunder the judgment of conviction convicting the respondent - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 was confirmed while the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 420 was modified for the one under Section 417 of IPC. The Appellate Court also modified the order regarding sentence. For the offence punishable under Section 4 468 IPC, the respondent was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the offence under Section 471 IPC she was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and similarly for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC also she was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The State is aggrieved by the order of sentence in so far as it relates to the offence under Section 417 of IPC. According to the learned State Public Prosecutor, the offence under Section 417 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year and therefore the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in sentencing the respondent - accused only to pay fine. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have sentenced the respondent to undergo imprisonment for a maximum period of one year provided under said section.
4. As could be seen from Section 417 of IPC the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory. The said offence is punishable with either 5 description for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Therefore, the court, which finds the accused guilty of the said offence, has discretion either to impose sentence of imprisonment or only fine or both. In the case on hand, as could be seen from the judgment of the Appellate Court, the learned Sessions Judge has found that interest of justice would be met by sentencing the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC only with fine instead of sentencing her to undergo imprisonment.
5. As noticed supra, for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, the respondent has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Even if the respondent had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a maximum period of one year as provided under Section 417 IPC, it would not have made any difference for the reason that generally the courts would order substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned 6 Appellate Judge is justified in exercising the discretion in the matter of imposition of sentence for the offence under Section 417 IPC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which warrants enhancement of sentence for the said offence. In this view of the matter, no purpose will be served by issuing notice to the respondent on the application. I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the application filed for condonation of delay are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE RS/*