NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 817 of 2016 Smt. Kshama Devi Thakur W/o Kishanlal Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Jhalmala , Police Station And Tahsil - Balod , District - Balod Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Balod , District - Balod Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.02 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 17.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District: Balod (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.02.04 17:15:00 +0530 19.05.2016 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod in Criminal Case No. 455 of 2015 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 454 of IPC RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 1 month. U/s 380 of IPC RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 1 month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Vishnu Ram Thakur lodged a report at Police Station: Balod, alleging therein that on 20.03.2015 some unknown person has stolen the ATM Card of his daughter and theft of Rs. 40,000/- has been committed from her account. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the unknown person and during course of investigation the present applicant was arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District: Balod (C.G.). 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 Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and other co-accused in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the present applicant has remained in jail for 29 days i.e. from 24.03.2015 to 04.04.2015 and 17.08.2016 to 02.09.2016, he is facing the lis since March 2015, i.e. for more than 9 years, she has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by her. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Vishnu Ram (complainant) supported by PW-2 Purnima Thakur (daughter of the complainant), and other evidence 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 a correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 29 days, she is facing the lis since March 2015 and there is no criminal antecedents against her, 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 her is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and she is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her 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 Saurabh