1 2025:CGHC:32585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2218 of 1998 Vijay Kumar Yadu, S/o Late Rama Yadu, Aged 46 years, R/o Shri Ram Chowk, Tikrapara, Post – Tikrapara, Raipur (M.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus The State Of M.P. through C.B.I. Jabalpur (Now State Of C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Rigri alongwith Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.Gopa Kumar standing counsel for CBI alongwith Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 14/07/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.1998 passed by the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I, Jabalpur passed in Special Case No.22/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 420 of the RI for 2 years and fine of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Indian Penal Code Rs.2,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.14,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.4,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.4,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 467/471of the Indian Penal Code RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 year. Under Section 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. 3 Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused, Vijay Kumar Yadu, was posted as a Special Assistant at Bank of India, Raipur Branch, from October 1990 to February 1991. During this period, he fraudulently withdrew amounts of 5,000 on 23.10.1990 (Ex. ₹ P-1), 5,000 on 27.11.1990 (Ex. P-2), 15,000 on 27.12.1990 (Ex. ₹ ₹ P-9), 27,500 on 31.01.1991 (Ex. P-7), and 9,500 on 07.02.1991 ₹ ₹ (Ex. P-8), using forged withdrawal slips from the account of one Iccha Chauhan (Account No. 10738). The accused personally filled out the withdrawal slips, entered the ledger folio and account numbers, issued token numbers in the payment scroll book, and made false entries in the ledger and supplementary cash vouchers. The total misappropriated amount was 66,500. Upon ₹ receiving information, Shri Govind Purohit, Chief Officer of the Inquiry Wing, Bhopal, conducted a preliminary inquiry during which the accused confessed to the crime in a written statement (Ex. P-2). Based on this, a departmental inquiry was initiated by R.J. Sagar, and the departmental report (Ex. P-10A) found the accused guilty. Following a complaint, FIR No. 32/91 dated 19.07.1991 was registered by the CBI, and investigation was conducted by Inspector Nagendra Prasad Singh. The accused’s 4 handwriting samples (Ex. P-89 to P-239) were obtained and sent for forensic analysis along with the disputed documents. Document examiner V.G.S. Bhatnagar submitted his opinion (Ex. P-22). After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the accused had already been dismissed from service, prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Act was not required. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and in defence DW-1, Rakesh Jamunadas Sagar has been examined. 4. After consideration, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused claimed to be innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has further stated that on 12.03.1991, he was summoned to Hotel Madhuvan, Raipur by one Kulkarni, where he was accompanied by his father- in-law D.P. Yaduvanshi. He alleged that Govind Purohit pressured him into accepting responsibility, promising that no harm would come to him and that other staff would be spared. He further claimed he was coerced and threatened into making a written confession, and that he is innocent and falsely implicated. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned 5 judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. 6. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 09.07.2025 Medical Board was constituted and Medical Board has submitted its report, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “ We the members of District Medical Board Raipur have examined Shri Vijay Kumar Yadu, S/o Rama Yadu, 73 Yrs old male As per available medical records and physical examination he appears as a case of Systemic Hypertension with right sided hemiplegia due to cerebrovascular accident.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 420 of IPC to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420 of IPC to three years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420 of IPC to four years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420 of IPC to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420 of IPC to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 467/471 of IPC to four years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 468/471 of IPC to two years' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 477-A of IPC to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to three years' rigorous imprisonment, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. It is submitted that although the appellant has undergone actual incarceration for only 39 days, he faced the trial for approximately seven years, and the appeal has been pending for about 27 years. The appellant is presently aged about 73 years and 6 is virtually bedridden due to multiple age-related ailments. Incarceration at this stage would cause undue hardship to him. It is further submitted that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 49,500/- as imposed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 17.09.1998. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the trial Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the judgment, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. The issue before this Court is whether the sentence of the appellant, as imposed by the learned trial court, warrants interference in light of the mitigating circumstances placed on record such as clean antecedents, the advanced age of the appellant, his deteriorating health condition and prolonged delay in the conclusion of proceedings 11. In criminal jurisprudence, sentencing is not merely a mechanical exercise but involves a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors. While aggravating circumstances highlight the gravity and impact of the offence, mitigating factors provide insight into the personal circumstances of the offender which may require a 7 lesser punishment. 12. Mitigating factors may include the age of the accused, absence of prior criminal record, mental or physical health conditions, socio- economic background, duration of trial, and good conduct during incarceration. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 inter alia held as under: "9.... It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti- social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an "in terrorem" outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. … 16. … ‘ A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the 8 offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence. [As observed in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190 at p. 191: 1976 SCC (Cri) 546]' 17. It will thus be seen that there is a great discretion vested in the Judge, especially when pluralistic factors enter his calculations. innovation, in all conscience, is in the field of judicial discretion." (Emphasis supplied) 13. Similarly, in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying on the judgment of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) reiterated the importance of considering mitigating factors while awarding sentence, particularly in cases involving long-pending prosecutions. The Court observed that the incident in question therein had occurred nearly four decades ago and that the appellant had no prior criminal record. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant therein was reduced from 5 years to 3 years considering the mitigating circumstances. The operative portion reads as under: 9 "10. It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into consideration. … Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] (two-Judge Bench), while considering the settlement between the parties concerning an offence under Section 307IPC, observed: 13.1. The goal of sentencing can be a combination of incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. 13.2. In India we do not have any such sentencing policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may not only aim at achieving consistency in awarding sentences in different cases, such guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well, namely, whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular case is more of a deterrence or retribution or rehabilitation, etc. In the absence of such guidelines in India, the courts go by their own perception about the philosophy behind the prescription of certain specified penal consequences for particular nature of crime. 13.3. For some deterrence and/or vengeance becomes more important whereas another Judge may be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of both which would weigh in the mind of the court in awarding a particular 10 sentence. However, that may be a question of quantum. … 16. More recently, in Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh [Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh, (2016) 16 SCC 441: (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 514] (two-Judge Bench), this Court observed that it is not possible to have strict principles on sentencing in absence of a sentencing policy for the State, however certain mitigating factors like the gravity of the offence, motive for commission of the crime, the manner in which it was committed need to be borne in mind and thereafter sentence be imposed. ... 20. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and findings of the courts below, it can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted. From a reading of the impugned order [Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7212), it is a matter of record that there was old enmity between the complainant and A-1 relating to the piece of land where the offence came to be committed, while pertinently, the appellant (A-2) is the nephew of A-1 21. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant that have been brought on record. Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever. 22. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of the abovementioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the sentence imposed 11 on the appellant-accused from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant shall pay a fine amount of Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) within a period of 6 weeks from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The fine to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation." (Emphasis supplied) 14. From the aforesaid judgment(s) it is clear that the objective of sentencing has to be a combination of deterrence and rehabilitation. Both have to coexist and in the absence of one, the purpose of the other cannot be achieved. The list of mitigating factors has been enumerated above and the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive. No hard and fast formula or mechanism for combining deterrence with rehabilitation can be laid down. but the same has to be worked out on individual and case to case basis. 15. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 16. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is 12 guilty for offence punishable under Sections 420, 420, 420, 420, 420, 467/471, 468/471 and 477-A of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. 17. A vital mitigating factor in considering the sentence is the appellant’s advanced age. At 73 years old, suffering from serious health ailments, he is highly vulnerable to the physical and psychological impact of incarceration. Any such imprisonment would risk causing irreversible harm and would defeat the very objective of mitigating the sentence. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of 39 days and has already deposited fine amount of Rs. 49,500/- imposed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant has produced a photocopy of the amounts deposited before the Court concerned from the original receipt and a copy of the same is also supplied to the learned counsel for the CBI and State, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may suffice to meet the ends of justice, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 18. The High Court of Delhi in Surendra Kumar v. C.B.I, (CRL.A.No.869/2002), decided on 8.7.2025 considering the mitigating circumstances has held as under:- “25. Considering the above circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for reducing the quantum of sentence of the appellant considering the mitigating circumstances. Hence, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the time already 13 served.” 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 420, 420, 420, 420, 420, 467/471, 468/471 and 477-A of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e., 39 days of jail sentence and fine as imposed by the trial Court, which he has already been paid. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan