1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 283 of 2016 1 - Taufiq Aalam S/o Sahood Aalam Aged About 21 Years Caste Muslim R/o Chikhlakasa P.S. Dalli Rajhara District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Arun Kumar S/o Chaganlal Halba Aged About 17 Years R/o Piperkhar Presently R/o Balak Adivasi Chatravas Chikhalakasa District Durg Chhattisgarh … Applicants/Revisioners versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. Forest Range Tekadhodha Forest Range Dalli Rajhara, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants/Revisioners : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order On Board 18/02/2025 Heard. 1. The applicants have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Balod in Criminal Appeal No.2000099/13 rejecting the appeal while affirming the judgment dated 14.01.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.273/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajhara, Dist. Durg C.G., whereby the applicants were convicted under Section 33(1)(d)(p)(t) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, the ‘Forest Act’) and 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6-6 months and to undergo RI for 01-01 year and in default of fine amount, to undergo RI for one month on each count, while directing to run sentences concurrently. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.20 10:07:47 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 09.02.2007, the applicants along with other co-accused persons were found cutting and separated the teakwood by using saw and axe etc in the forest near village Tekhdhodha and thereby violated provisions of Forest Act and subsequently, they were caught while cutting, separating and stealing the timber. A complaint was lodged by Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Dallirajhara before the J.M.F.C. Balod against the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 3. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicants remained in jail for 21 days, i.e., from 10.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and are facing the lis since February, 2007 i.e. for more than 18 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicants that the jail sentence awarded to applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statements of P.W.6 T.R.Dehor, Forest Guard, P.W.1 Brijmohan Dhruv, Deputy Ranger and P.W.2 R.K. Kuldeep, Deputy Forest Ranger supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Pratap Singh Thakur, Forest Guard and other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the 3 finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants. 8. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the applicants remained in jail for 21 days, have no criminal antecedents and are facing the lis since February, 2007 i.e. for more than 18 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence and that of direction to run sentences concurrently shall remain intact 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail 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 Anjani