NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 680 of 2016 1. Premsingh Sarthi S/o Raju Sarthi, aged about 38 years 2. Jairam Yadav S/o Sunder Sai Yadav, aged about 35 years 3. Ravishankar Sarthi S/o Vidhyadhar Sarthi, aged about 25 years Applicant No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village- Salheona, P.S. - Sariya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Chudamani Patel S/o Arjun Patel, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Jhanakpur, Thana - Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Manbodh Sidar S/o Totaram Sidar, aged about 26 years R/o Village - Bade Aamakoni, Thana - Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Rajkumar Yadav S/o Lalitram Yadav, aged about 28 years R/o Village Gobarsingha, Thana – Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7. Dilip Kumar Patel S/o Amar Vishal Patel, aged about 28 years R/o Village - Bade Amakoni, Thana - Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.03.18 15:50:13 +0530 For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. This revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 202000000082015 whereby, the appeal of the applicants filed against the judgment dated 12.02.2015 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, in Criminal Case No. 2222 of 2013 convicting them under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 467 and sentencing them RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default additional RI for two months (for each offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC), and also convicting them under Section 467 of IPC and sentencing them RI for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 500, in default additional RI for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 10.03.2010, an advertisement was issued by the office of the Collector, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh for the post of Peon on the basis of 5th Class Marksheet in the Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Raigarh. It is alleged that the present applicants have applied for the said post on the basis of forged mark sheet and thereafter the said selection process was dropped. On the basis of aforesaid, offence were registered against the applicants. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant No.1 - Premsingh Sarthi has remained in jail for 1 year 1 month and 10 days i.e. from 03.09.2013 to 27.08.2014, 12.02.2015 to 16.02.2015 and 18.07.2016 to 31.08.2016, applicant No. 2 - Jairam Yadav has remained in jail for 1 year 1 month 1 day i.e. from 03.09.2013 to 18.08.2014, 12.02.2015 to 16.02.2015 and 18.07.2016 to 31.08.2016, applicant No. 3 Ravishankar Sarthi and applicant No. 4 Chudamani Patel have remained in jail for 11 months 16 days i.e. from 19.10.2013 to 18.08.2014, 12.02.2015 to 16.02.2015 and 18.07.2016 to 31.08.2016, applicant No. 5- Manbodh Sidar and applicant No. 6 – Rajkumar Yadav have remained in jail for 5 months 11 days i.e. from 19.10.2013 to 12.02.2014, 12.02.2015 to 16.02.2015 and 18.07.2016 to 31.08.2016 and applicant No. 7 – Dilip Kumar Patel has remained in jail for 4 months 23 days i.e. from 07.11.2013 to 12.02.2014, 12.02.2015 to 16.02.2015 and 18.07.2016 to 31.08.2016. He further submits that the applicants are facing the lis since October 2011, i.e. for more than 13 years, they have no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by them. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-1 B.K. Rajput, supported by the statements of T.R. Chauhan, Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) and other evidence 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 correct finding. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the applicants were in jail and they are facing the lis since October 2011 i.e. for more than 13 years and there is no criminal antecedent against them, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to 4 months 23 days which is already 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 4 months 23 days, which they have already undergone. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 11. Since the applicant are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh