36 of 1961, the High Court said with respect of the sentence The sentence of imprisonment is also low but possibly the Sessions Court took account of the fact that there were other and similar cases against Ranchhodlal in which there was a possibility of a companyviction.
With respect to the sentence in the appeal against the first companyviction in Sessions Trial No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders, dated May 21, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeals Nos.
246 and 258 of 1963 respectively.
55 of 1962, the High Court said If there had been an application for enhancement of sentence, I would number have hesitated to increase the sentence because this paying himself on the part of the appellant is a very serious matter.
30 and 31 of 1962 Nos.
Jai Gopal Sethi, R. C. Mukati and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant in all the appeals .
35 of 1961, the High Court said Coming to the sentences, the basic offence is criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC and a sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment cannot, in these circumstances, be companysidered excessive.
In the fourth appeal, the High Court said The trial Court has awarded a sentence of three years without fine.
But there being numbersuch prayer by the State, the matter has to be left at that.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
In disposing of the appeal against the companyviction in the second case, Sessions Trial No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. The appellant, in these four appeals by special leave, was companyvicted in four cases of an offence under s. 409 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in the first two cases on January 17, 1962, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Shri B. Aggarwal.
218 to 221 of 1964.
N. Shroff, for the respondent in all the appeals .
In each of the other two cases, the appellant was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment under S. 409 I.P.C. by Shri Dube, First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, on July 20, 1963.
He was also companyvicted in these two cases of offences under s. 467 read with s. 471 and s. 477A I.P.C. The sentences imposed for these offences were to run companycurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for the of fence under s. 409 I.P.C. The sentences imposed in the two cases for the offence under s. 409 I.P.C. were to run companysecutively as numberorder had been made by the Sessions Judge for the sentence in the case in which judgment was pronounced later, to run companycurrently with the sentence imposed in the other case.
The Sessions Judge ordered the sentences in these two cases to run companycurrently, but did number order them to run companycurrently with the sentence awarded in the first case on January 17, 1962.
The appeals against the companyviction of the appellant in the four cases were dismissed by the High Court.
In the third appeal from the order in Sessions Trial No.
