1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 631   OF  2011

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8236/2008)

GHANSHYAM                                  Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                       Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Application for impleadment is allowed.

Leave granted.

The appellant was charged for having committed  

offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 of  

the  Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The Chief Judicial  

Magistrate at Beed (Maharashtra), after trial of the  

case, convicted the appellant under all the three  

Sections  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  simple  

imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-  

under  Section  420  of  the  I.P.C.  and  to  further  

undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to  

pay a fine of Rs.5000/- separately under Sections  

468 and 471 of the I.P.C.

2

The Sessions Judge, Beed, however, acquitted  

the  appellant  for  the  offence  punishable  under  

Section  468  of  the  I.P.C.  but  maintained  the  

conviction  and  sentence  of  the  appellant  under  

Sections 420 and 471 of the I.P.C.  

The appellant filed a revision before the High  

Court which was dismissed, affirming the conviction  

and sentence of the appellant under Sections 420 and  

471 of the I.P.C.  

Admittedly, the entire amount of Rs.60,000/-  

involved  in  the  case,  has  been  deposited  by  the  

appellant.  

The  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Zila  

Parishad, Beed, has filed an application before this  

Court in which it is mentioned that since the entire  

amount  has  been  deposited  by  the  appellant,  they  

have no objection if the sentence under Section 420  

of the I.P.C. is compounded.  The alleged incident  

took  place  23  years  ago  and  the  appellant  has  

already undergone a part of the sentence.

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

3

appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned  

counsel for the complainant. In our considered view,  

ends of justice would meet if,  while upholding the  

conviction of the appellant, the sentence is reduced  

to the period already undergone by him. We direct  

accordingly.  

This  order  is  subject  to  the  appellant's  

paying additionally a fine of Rupees One Lakh within  

six weeks from today. This appeal is disposed of  

with these observations and directions.  

In case the amount of fine, as directed above  

is not deposited by the appellant, then this order  

would be of no avail to the appellant and he would  

have to serve out the remaining period of sentence.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; February 28, 2011.