1 2025:CGHC:47743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 517 of 2016 • Gasat Ram @ Gasat Sai, S/o Ranjeet Ram @ Ranjeet Singh, aged about 50 Years (now 57 Years), R/o Village Dudungjore, Thana and Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Civil and Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms.Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.02/2009, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 30.12.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.208/2007 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, C.G, convicting the applicant under AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.09.18 11:59:04 +0530 2 Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.10.2006, complainant/PW-1 - M.S. Painkra lodged a written report (Ex.P-3) at Police Station, Pathalgaon alleging that the present applicant obtained employment as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department by producing a false caste certificate claiming to belong to the Scheduled Tribe, whereas the applicant actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste. On the basis of written report (Ex.P-3), FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, Jashpur, C.G. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2016 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. She further submits that at present, the age of the applicant is approximately 70 years, he has remained in jail from 24.05.2016 to 09.06.2016 i.e. for 17 days, he has no criminal 3 antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2006, i.e. for almost 19 years. She also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant/PW-1 M.S. Painkara, Senior Principal, Kotba; PW-2 Nityanand Bohidar, Clerk, Block Education Office, Pathalgaon; PW-3 Madan Lal Lehre, Clerk, SDO (Revenue) Office, Dharamjaigarh; PW-9 Hiralal Gopal, Clerk, Block Education Office, Pathalgaon and the other evidence and material 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 record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further taking into account that the present age of the applicant is approximately 70 years, he has undergone 17 days, he is facing the lis since 2006 i.e. for almost 19 years and he has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining 4 conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Court of JMFC as well as the Appellate Court is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence is affirmed. 11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh