1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 941 of 2014 Roshan Ali @ Sonu S/o Late Shaukat Ali Aged About 22 Years R/o Nayapara Road, Rahmaniya Chowk, P.S. Gole Bazar, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Tikrapara, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kamal Kishor Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 10.11.2014, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 215/2014, whereby the learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 6088/2014 dated 17.09.2014, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 454 of Indian Penal Code (for short”IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo 1 year and 6 months rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 imprisonment of 3 months, and Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year and 6 months rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. It was directed that both the sentence would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the applicant and one Samir Ahmed has been tried for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC, by the C.J.M. Raipur, in Criminal Case No.6088/2014. The accused persons were between dated 15.03.2014 to 20.03.2014 near Dawda Colony, Bhairo Society Garden at the residential house of Prakash Chand Jain committed house trespass at night and theft various articles including 2 sets golden Bengal other articles Rs. 6,000/- of cash and paper of vehicle, charges were framed by the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has affirmed the decision of the trial Court, and partly allowed the appeal of the applicant and sentenced was modified for Section 454 of IPC to undergo one year and six months RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional R.I., and further for the offence under Section 380 of IPC, modified the sentence for 1 year and 6 months and also for Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record and 3 thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has already undergone about 07 months and 24 days of jail sentence, and fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 5. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/ State and would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. Thus, the convictions are affirmed. 8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant/accused is facing the criminal trial since 2014 and more than 10 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant/accused at present and further considering that the applicant/accused has already undergone about 07 months and 24 days of jail sentence, and fine amount has already been deposited by him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant/accused in jail again as he has already suffered agony of 4 criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant/accused, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 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 Rajshekhar