1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 925 of 2016 Pannalal Patel @ Panna Lal Verma @ Panna Lal Lodhi S/o Balram Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Parsada, Police Station Nandani, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.N.Pusty, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara in Criminal Appeal No.28/2016, affirming the judgment dated 24.05.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.567/2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, Dist. Bemetara C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is alleged to have obtained Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant Tuman Kumar (P.W.1) on different Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.13 16:53:08 +0530 2 dates on the false pretext of providing employment in the Mantralaya, but the complainant did not get any such employment. Thereafter, the complainant, feeling himself being cheated at the hands of the applicant, lodged a written report at police station Parpodi vide Ex.P.1. On the basis of written report, FIR (Ex.P-13) has been lodged against the applicant under Section 420 of IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of J.M.F.C., Saja. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- plus default stipulation. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that applicant remained in jail for a period of 1 year 2 months and 24 days, i.e., from 04.07.2015 till 30.09.2016, on which date, bail was granted to the applicant, he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since June, 2012, i.e., for more than 12 years. He also submits that during bail granted by this Court, he never misused the liberty granted to him. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statement of the complainant – Tuman Kumar (P.W.1) supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Lalaram Sahu, P.W.2 Lakhan Lal, P.W.3 Ramesh Sahu, P.W.5 Punit Sahu as well as the other evidence and material 3 available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and nature of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of 1 year 2 months and 24 days, has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since June, 2012 i.e. for more than 12 years and further that, he never misused the liberty granted to him during bail granted by this Court, I am of the view 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 shall remain intact. 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 them. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds 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