1 2025:CGHC:22898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.109 of 2016 • Videshi Ram Yadav S/o Derharam Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sanjari, Police Station Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Incharge, Police Chowki - Sanjari, Police Station Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Vidya Bhusan Soni, Advocates, For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.0000011/2015 arising out of judgment dated 31.01.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doundilohara, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 94/2012. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the present applicant under Section 420 (four counts) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (four times), in default of payment of fine, additional PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.11 14:12:44 +0530 2 rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Kriparam (PW-01) and other persons were deceitfully induced by the present applicant in the name of providing job to them and therefore, the applicant took money from them. It is further alleged that the applicant has neither provided job nor returned money to the complainant and other persons. Thereafter, the complainant Kriparam (PW-1) made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) dated 27.02.2012, on the basis of which the FIR was registered in the concerned Police Station. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the concerned Court. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order. During the appeal, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence against the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant has remained in jail for 20 days i.e. from 12.04.2012 to 19.04.2012 and from 29.01.2016 to 09.02.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since April 2012. He 3 further submits that fine amount has already been deposited and at present the applicant is aged about 55 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel 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 facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Kriparam (PW-1), Dilip Kumar Sonkar (PW-02), Narottam Lal (PW-03), Awadhram (PW-05) supported with the statements of other witnesses, 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. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 20 days, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since April, 2012, i.e. for more than 13 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited and at present, the applicant is aged about 55 years old, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail and 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 4 already undergone by him while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. 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 him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the 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 Prakash