2025:CGHC:9907 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 89 of 2016 • Madhu Mangal S/o Douram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kusmisarar, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ------Appellant VERSUS • The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh -------Respondent For Appellant : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent : R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, Judge ORDER 25/02/2025 1. This revision under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 18.01.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, C.G. whereby appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 444/2012 vide judgment dated 20.06.2013 wherein the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence Under Section 420/34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine 20 days additional R.I. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.02.28 11:52:21 +0530 Under Section 467/34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine 50 days additional R.I. Under Section 468/34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine 20 days additional R.I. Under Section 471 of IPC R.I. for 1 year All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.04.2012 complainant Parmanand Kolta lodged a written report at police station Saraipali alleging that he and co-accused Kailash Pradhan (died) are real borther and the land bearing khasra No. 759 area 0.62 is the ancestral property recorded in the name of complainant and Kailash Pradhan in the revenue record. Accused Kailash Pradhan by impersonating the present applicant as complainant Parmanand Kolta has sold out the share of complainant to one Rajiya Begum by registered sale deed dated 24.02.2012 behind the back of complainant by affixing photograph of present applicant in the sale deed. On the basis of above report, aforementioned offence registered against applicant and co-accused Kailash Pradhan and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the court. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 3. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant for the offence mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the trial Court and maintained the conviction of the applicant passed by learned JMFC. Aggrieved therewith, the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He submits that the main accused Kailash Pradhan has already been died on 09.09.2015. He further submits that in the present case, the applicant has remained in jail for 1 year 13 days i.e. from 07.07.2012 to 20.06.2013 and from 18.01.2016 to 17.02.2016, he is facing the lis since July 2012, i.e. for more than 12 years, there is no criminal antecedents against the applicant and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposes the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-2 Parmanand Pradhan (complainant), PW-1 Mahendra Agrawal (Incharge Sub-Registrar), and PW-6 Sahdev Thakur (I.O.), and the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct fact of finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 1 year 13 days, he is facing the lis since July 2012 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, 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 pwn