1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 504 of 2016 1. Ku. Beena Meshram @ Veena Meshram, D/o Neelkanth Meshram, Aged About 22 Years, 2. Vivek Kumar Meshram, S/o Neelkanth Meshram, Aged About 29 Years, Both are R/o Qtr. No. 5/E, Street No. 37, Sector 6, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 10/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.000087/2013 arising out of judgment dated 04.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 850 of 2011. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the present applicants under Section 420/34 of the IPC and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.11 16:56:02 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Lokesh Dewangan (PW-1) was deceitfully induced by the present applicants stating that in the name of providing employment in Singapore, the applicants opened an office, namely, Vision International at Shriram Market, Supela, in which the complainant and other persons have deposited money with applicants. It is alleged that the applicants have taken money from the complainant and other persons in the name of preparation of visa and other documents and after obtaining money from them, the applicants fled away taking the money. Allegation against applicant No.1 – Ku. Beena Meshram is that she used to maintain the receipt books in the office of Vision International. Thus, the applicants on the pretext of providing job, prepared forged documents, and thereby cheated the complainant and other persons. On the basis of the above, the complainant lodged FIR in the Police Station Supela, District - Durg. Thereafter, the applicants were arrested. After investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and co-accused persons before the concerned Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant/accused persons under Section 467 (23 counts), 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, however, convicted and sentenced the applicants and other co-accused person (Imran Iqbal) vide order dated 04.05.2013 and in the appeal preferred by the applicants and the co-accused – Imran Iqbal, the learned Appellate 3 Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2016, acquitted the co-accused Imran Iqbal of the charges framed against him, however, affirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant No.1 – Ku. Beena Meshram @ Veena Meshram has remained in jail for about 748 days i.e. from 26.04.2011 to 04.05.2013 and from 26.05.2016 to 02.06.2016 and applicant No.2 – Vivek Kumar Meshram has remained in jail for about 738 days from 06.05.211 to 04.05.2013 and from 26.05.2016 to 02.06.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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 and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Lokesh Dewangan (PW-1), supported with the statements of other witnesses, and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on 4 record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicant No.1 – Ku. Beena Meshram @ Veena Meshram has remained in jail for about 748 days whereas applicant No.2 – Vivek Kumar Meshram has remained in jail for about 738 days, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants back to jail and 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 while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. 10. 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. The fine sentence is affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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