1 2025:CGHC:763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 783 of 2015 Trinath Patel S/o Pilababu Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Lendhra, Thana Baramkela, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in criminal appeal No. 202000000442015, arising out of the judgment and order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, in criminal case No. 430/2015, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.07 15:35:01 +0530 2 fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months. 2. According to the prosecution's story, the complainant, Saheb Ram Chowdhry, Supervisor of Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Branch, Raigarh, lodged a written complaint alleging misappropriation at Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Lendra, and Kumahari. According to the auditor's report, the Samiti purchased paddy in 2011-12, but 671.71 quintals of paddy and 9,773 gunny bags were found missing, resulting in a loss of Rs. 9,97,180.47/-. A preliminary inquiry found the applicant and other accused responsible for the shortage. At the time, the applicant was working as Phad Prabhari, and the other accused was working as Samiti Prabandhak of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sub Centre Kumahari, Tahsil Baramkela. 3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 09.07.2015, convicting the applicant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 09.07.2015, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 08.09.2015 in criminal appeal No. 202000000442015. 3 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant has already undergone near about 11 months of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offences punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months. In an appeal preferred by the applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 08.09.2015 in criminal appeal No. 202000000442015. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that 4 the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 9. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial commenced on 23.04.2013 which continued till 09.07.2015, and though the appeal also continued near about 02 months and this revision petition has been pending since 15.09.2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 11 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone near about 11 months of jail sentence and also considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist i.e. Jaydev Shrichand Danani (supra), there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 03 years under Section 409 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. near about 11 months of jail sentence, however further fine amount is imposed of Rs. 5000/-, in addition to what he has earlier been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of a month from today before the concerned trial Court, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court and afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court, Raigarh (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 5 10. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicant before the concerned trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the Children Observation Home, Raigarh (C.G.) 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek