1 2025:CGHC:2043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 866 of 2014 Aannad @ Nandu Soni S/o Bhauram Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kosamdih, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 21.11.2014, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 181/2014, whereby the learned appellate Court afÏrmed the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No. 384/2013 dated 02.08.2014, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code (for short”IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 1 month. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on the date of incident on 09.10.2019, at village Kosamdih, P.S. Masturi District – Bilaspur. The complainant Sarojni along with her husband Pramod Kumar went by motorcycle from Kosamdih to Mohtara. At village Kosamdih applicant wrongful restraint and robed motorcycle from complainant. Complainant lodged report in P.S. Masturi District, on 09.10.2010, the P.S. Masturi filed charge-sheet against the applicant. 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 judged of trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has afÏrmed the decision of the trial Court. 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 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 26 days of jail sentence, and fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce 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. 3 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 afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in afÏrming the conviction of the applicant/accused for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. Thus, the convictions are afÏrmed. 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 26 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 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