1 2025:CGHC:49294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 856 of 2016 Shivprasad S/o Gahiru Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Dhangaon, Police Station- Doundilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balod Station House Officer, Police Station- Doundilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni appears on behalf of Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 25/09/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal revision preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Balod in Criminal Appeal No.0000091/15 whereby, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant while affirming the judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.244/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara, Dist. Balod convicting the applicant under Section 419, 468/109 & 471/109 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months on each count with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.07.1992, in Criminal Case No. 14/92 pending before the Court of Executive Magistrate, Dondi Lohara, accused Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.09.26 14:34:15 +0530 2 Tar Singh appeared before the Executive Magistrate under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C. by impersonating himself as one Punau Ram, who had in fact died on 18.10.1989, and executed a bail bond in the name of the said deceased person. The prosecution has further alleged that accused Shiv Prasad and Deshu Ram abetted the said act by instigating and assisting Tar Singh in personating the deceased Punau Ram and in executing the forged surety bond. On receipt of information from the Executive Magistrate an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara The applicant and other co-accused persons abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of CJM and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge this revision on conviction part and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that applicant remained in jail for a period of 48 days, i.e., from 08.04.1993 to 16.04.93 and again from 11.08.2016 to 20.09.2016 and he is facing the lis since 08.04.1993, i.e., for more about 32 years. He also submits that he was on bail during trial and thereafter by this Court and during that period he never misused the liberty granted to him and that, at present the applicant is aged about 80 years old person and fine amount has already been deposited. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 3 8. Applicant is not challenging his conviction part and in view of the material available on record, applicant is rightly convicted. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and nature of the case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of 48 days and is facing the lis since 08.04.1993 i.e. for more than 32 years and further that, he never misused the liberty granted to him during bail granted to him and considering the age of the applicant being 80 years old at present, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of J.M.F.C. as well as that of Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence and that, the direction to run all the sentences concurrently shall remain intact. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. 2023 Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani