1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2016 • Tar Singh S/o Bhukhau, Aged About 50 Years, Caste Mochi, R/o Village Rengadabri, Police Station Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.0000099/2015 arising out of judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doundilohara, District - Balod, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 244/09. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Sections 419, 468 and 471 of the IPC wherein the applicant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.12 16:46:33 +0530 2 additional R.I. for two months on each count. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, on 02.02.1993-10.02.1993, a memo was received by the police station Doundilohara from Executive Magistrate to the effect that on 17.07.1992, in Case No.14/1992 and counter Case No.13/1992 arising out of Ishtagasha No.34/1992 and 33/1992 under Section 107, 116 of the Cr.P.C., a personal bond of Punau son of Tijau Mochi was submitted for execution of bail bond of accused Tar Singh and other co-accused persons, though the said Punau has already died on 18.10.1989. On the above background, offence under Sections 419, 420, 109, 468 and 471 of the IPC was registered against the applicant and co-accused persons. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and co-accused persons 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 and other co-accused perons as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment and vide judgment dated 11.08.2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment. 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 the applicant has remained in jail for 1 month and 5 days i.e. from 08.04.1993 to 20.04.1993 and from 11.08.2016 to 3 02.09.2016, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since, 1992, i.e. for more than 32 years and at present, he is aged about 60 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited. 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. 8. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that he is not challenging the conviction part of the applicant and prays for reducing the jail sentence for the period the applicant has already undergone, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 1 month and 5 days, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since, 1992, i.e. for more than 32 years, and at present, he is aged about 60 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited, 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 already undergone by him while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. Further, the sentence are directed to run concurrently. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4 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 Prakash