1 2025:CGHC:763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 769 of 2015 Ratnakar Karsh S/o Pandav Lal Karsh Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahaveerpara Lendhra, Police Station Baramkela, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in criminal appeal No. 202000000492015, arising out of the judgment and order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, in criminal case No. 430/2015, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.07 15:33:36 +0530 2 fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months. 2. According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant, Saheb Ram Choudhary, Supervisor of Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank Branch Raigarh, lodged a report at Baramkela Police Station. He alleged misappropriation in Sewa Sahakari Samiti Lendhra and Kumhari. An auditor's report revealed shortages: 671.71 quintals of paddy and 9,773 gunny bags, resulting in a Rs. 9,97,180.47/- loss to the government. A preliminary inquiry found the Society Manager and Fad Prabhari, co-accused Trinath Patel, responsible for the shortages. A report (Exb. P-6) was lodged against the petitioner, leading to an FIR (Exb. P-18). During the investigation, documents were seized (Seizure Memo Exb. P-7) from Saheb Raam Choudhary. The applicant was arrested, and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 03 years and the applicant has already suffered near about 2.5 years of jail sentence and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him. He further submits that considering age of the applicant at present who is aged about 53 years and as he has faced criminal trial since 2013 to 2015 and thereafter more than 09 years have been elapsed, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice. 3 4. Learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has afÏrmed the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 02 months. 7. Considering the findings given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the conviction and sentence of the applicant for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has faced criminal trial since 2013 till 2015 and thereafter more than 09 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 03 years and the applicant has already suffered 2.5 years of jail sentence and has already 4 deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 03 years under Section 409 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 2.5 years of jail sentence. Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek