1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 282 of 2016 Keshav Sahu S/o Gokul Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ramgarh, Police Station Mungeli, Civil And Revenue District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mungeli, District Mugeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 19/02/2025 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by the the Court Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Criminal Appeal No.33/10 whereby the judgment dated 30.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli in Criminal Case No.132/1997 convicting the applicant under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6-6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay fine amount, to further undergo RI for one month on each count, was affirmed while directing to run sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, after lurking house Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.20 16:54:34 +0530 2 trespass committed theft of golden and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.6,000/- in the dwelling house of complainant – Rajesh Jaiswal when he went to Pandariya to attend marriage function of his brother’s daughter. On a complaint being made by the complainant, a report was lodged and during investigation, the applicant was taken into custody and then on his memorandum statement, stolen property was seized. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 3. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant 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 18.03.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant 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 applicant remained in jail for one month and thirteen days, i.e., from 15.02.1997 to 15.03.1997 and again from 18.03.2016 till 30.03.2016, he is facing the lis since February, 1997 i.e. for more than 28 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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.1 Rajesh Jaiswal. P.W.2 Manorama, P.W.3 Devkali, P.W.4 Sunil Jaiswal and P.W.5 Ashok Soni and other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court and affirmed by by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said 3 finding of conviction of the applicant. 8. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for one month and thirteen days, has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since February 1997 i.e. for more than 28 years, I am of the view that 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 of 1 month and 13 days, which was already undergone by him. 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 the applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his 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