1 2025:CGHC:14291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 686 of 2012 Santosh Sahu S/o Late Har Prasad Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill. Nagpura, P.S. Chakarbhata , P.O. Nagpura, Dist. Bilaspur C.G. Pin No 495004, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate Chakarbhata, P.S. Nagpura Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Pin 4495220, ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 25/03/2025 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 17.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.149/12 by the 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed while upholding the judgment dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1378/2011 convicting the applicant under Sections 420,467, 468, 471/34 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 – 3 years and to pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- - 2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for 2 – 2 months on each count with direction to run sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.08.2008 at village Kadar, the Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.26 10:14:19 +0530 2 present applicant, in connivance with the co-accused Ramkishun Suryawanshi, executed the transfer deed of sale of land bearing Kh.No.27/3 area 1.00 acres owned by Ramkishun Adhoriya in favour of buyer Rambhajan Singh, by impersonating Ramkishan Suryawanshi as Ramkishun Adhoriya (original land owner), thereby he committed a crime for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC. Firstly, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn, entrusted the case to A.S.I. T.R.Joshi of Chakarbhata Police Station where the aforesaid offence was registered against both the accused persons under Crime No. 411/10. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Bilha. The applicant and other co-accused person abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicants, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the accused under the aforesaid Sections of IPC but confines his argument to the sentence part, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant was in jail from 30.11.2010 to 10.05.12 during trial and thereafter on 21.05.2012 for 11 days by the Sessions Court and again on 17.8.2012 to 19.10.2012 and thus he remained in jail for a period of one year, seven months and twenty days and that he is facing lis since 2010, i.e., for almost 15 years and at present, the applicant is aged about 55 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount imposed upon the applicant has already been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statement of complainant P.W.1 Ramkishun Adhoriya supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Rambhajan Singh, P.W.5 Mohanlal, P.W.6 Anup Agrawal and P.W.9 K.S.Paikra and other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused, which needs no interference. 8. As regards sentence part of the applicant, considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of one year, seven months and twenty days and is facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for almost 15 years have elapsed and at present, the applicant is aged about 55 years, I am of the considered opinion that the 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. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as that of Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence and that of direction to run sentences concurrently shall remain in tact. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the applicant for the aforesaid Sections is affirmed while reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone by him. The applicant is reported to be on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani