NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 631 of 2016 Vidhyadhar Sahu S/o Kumbhparia Sahum, aged about 27 years R/o – Village: Sagarpali, Police Station: Saraipali, Tahsil: Saraipali, Civil and Revenue District: Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 28.01 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016 by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 10.02.2016 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 239 of 2012 wherein, the applicant has been SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.29 10:42:46 +0530 convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 411 of IPC RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Chhabilal Patel, whole-seller of oil seeds sent his driver Dev Prasad Banjara to collect money. Thereafter, Dev Prasad Banjara along with co-accused persons namely Goverdhan and the present applicant on 23.07.2008 in Metador No. CG-04 9741 loaded with foods stuffs went to collect money. Thereafter, co-accused Dev Prasad informed the complainant that he has collected total Rs. 2,75,000/-. He further stated that on 24.07.2008 he reached near Paragaon, Fouji Dhaba at 11:00 pm, where after taking the meal, he slept and when he woke up, he found that the amount which he has collected has been stolen by some unknown person. When complainant inquired about the incident, Dev Prasad switched off his phone and when he reached to the house of complainant, he returned only Rs. Rs. 5,850/- to him. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 411 of IPC were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.). 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 as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.06.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the present applicant was not the main offender, he has remained in jail for 18 days i.e. from 25.07.2008 to 29.07.2008 and 30.06.2016 to 12.07.2016, he is facing the lis since July 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years, he has not criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Chabilal Patel (complainant) supported by PW-2 Roopdhar Patel, Santosh Kumar (PW-3), Shivkumar (PW-4), and the evidence of PW-12 D.R. Verma, S.I. (Investigating Officer) and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 18 days, he is facing the lis since July 2008 and there is no criminal antecedents against him, 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. 9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 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 Saurabh