1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 587 of 2010 1. Somaji Domne Soni, S/o Kunwar Lal Domne, aged about 45 years, R/o Tata Line Kohka, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District – Durg, (C.G.). 2. Dilip Domne S/o Kunwar Lal Domne, aged about 30 years, R/o Tata Line Kohka, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District – Durg, (C.G.). ... Applicants Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07.01.2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45/2008 by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for six months each. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.01.08 17:43:18 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants herein opened a shop in the name of famous Auto Mobiles Bajaj Showroom near Saluja Engineering Works and started a prize scheme for selling vehicles like Super Bajaj, Super Sunny etc. by depositing the amount in monthly installments. In the said scheme, a draw was made in the name of any one member from total members who did not have to pay the next installment. Pursuant to the said scheme, members had deposited about Rs.8,00,000/-. Suddenly, in the month of February, 1998, the said shop was closed. Thereafter, one Rajesh Dewangan (PW-01) lodged a written complaint before the police station and then the police registered offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicants under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced them R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for six months each. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, wherein, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.10.2010 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants, but challenging the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of year 1998, applicants have no 3 criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since year 2000, i.e. for more than 24 years. Applicant No.1 – Somaji Domne was in jail since 29.11.1999 to 17.12.1999, 11.01.2002 to 17.01.2002 and then from 27.10.2010 to 09.12.2010, i.e., he remained in jail for a period of 67 days and likewise, applicant No.2 – Dilip Domne was in jail since 08.02.2000 to 09.02.2000 and from 27.10.2010 till 09.12.2010 and thus he remained in jail for 44 days and they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicants. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Rajesh Dewangan, P.W.2 Sanjay Shrivastava, P.W.3 Vivek Kumar Mishra, and P.W.4 Abdul Hakim Khan, and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that the Appellate Court was justified in convicting the applicants as such. 9. As regards jail sentence of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that Applicant No.1 – Somaji Domne remained in jail for a period of 67 days and Applicant No.2 – Dilip Domne was in jail for a period of 44 days and that they are facing the lis since year 2000 i.e. for more than 24 years and there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction 4 imposed upon the applicants by the Appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10.Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash