1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 356 of 2016 Mannulal Thakur S/o Jivrakhan Thakur, Aged About 52 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Daniya, Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhusan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.0000115/15 arising out of judgment dated 27.11.2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.872/2014 wherein the Applicant has been convicted under Section 36-f (2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 16:45:09 +0530 2 month. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant but reduced the default sentence from R.I. of one month to R.I. of 20 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 08.07.2014, the applicant went to school premises and after consuming liquor in intoxicated condition, locked the school gate and created nuisance. The report to this effect was given to the police station Suregaon by the Block Education Officer F.R. Verma. On the basis of the above background, FIR was registered against the applicant. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod (C.G.) against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of CJM, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from 27.11.2015 to 28.11.2015 and from 06.04.2016 to 25.04.2016 i.e. total 20 days, he is facing the lis since 2014 i.e. for more than 11 years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine 3 amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant F.R. Verma (PW-01), Lakeshwar (PW-03), supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 20 days, he is facing the lis since 2014 i.e. for more than 11 years, he has no criminal antecedent, he has deposited the fine amount, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 20 days. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 4 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash