1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.428 of 2016 1. Damrudhar Yadav S/o Benuram, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Kotiya, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Ganesh Ram S/o Bhuneshwar Ram Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Kotiya, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Additional Judge, to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.20/2012 arising out of judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, District – Jashpur in Criminal Case No.463/2011 wherein the applicants/accused persons have been convicted under Section 6 read with Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.30 17:31:48 +0530 2 Preservation Act, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each and fine of Rs.200/- each, and in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment, hence, this revision. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the on 30.08.2012, the complainant, namely, Arjun Nagdeo (PW-01) lodged a report in police station, stating that the present applicants/accused persons were taking 10-12 agricultural cattle cow and oxes, for the purpose of slaughtering. On the basis of the said report, the police recovered the said cattle from the possession of the applicants/accused persons. During investigation, the applicants/ accused persons were arrested. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction of the applicants, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that there is no prescribed minimum punishment under the aforesaid Section. He further submits that the applicants have remained in jail for 13 days i.e. from 29.04.2016 to 11.05.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis 3 since the year 2010. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revisions and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant Arjun Ram Nagdev (PW-01), Premsai Manjhi (PW-03), Vishnu Ram (PW-04) and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants/accused persons. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail for 13 days and, they are facing the lis since 2010 i.e. for about 14 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period of 13 days which has already been undergone by them. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail 4 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 Prakash