1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 948 of 2016 • Bhushan Turkane S/o Vishnath Turkane, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sodh, Tahsil and Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 19/03/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.39/2015 arising out of judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Bemetara, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.189/2015 wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.25,000/-; under Section 467 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.19 16:48:30 +0530 2 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-; under Section 468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and under Section 471 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Tijiya Bai (PW-01) has made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station Berla stating therein that the present applicant/accused has obtained Rs.3,70,000/- and gold earring in order to provide job to her daughter and son on the post of ward boy and guard in the AIIMS Hospital, Raipur. It is alleged that after taking the said amount, the applicant has given offer letter in the name of daughter of the complainant which was forged. Thus, the applicant has not provided job nor returned the money to the complainant. On the basis of the written report, FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged against the applicant. 3. After investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the concerned Court. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court as well the Appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He 3 further submits that applicant has remained in jail from 25.01.2015 to 27.01.2017 i.e. for more than two years, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is facing the lis since, January, 2015, i.e. for more than 10 years. He further submits that fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been deposited before the concerned Trial Court on 14.02.2017. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Tijiya Bai (PW-01), Manjulata (PW-02), Sheikh Gulam Mohammad (PW-03) Administrative Officer, AIIMS Raipur supported with the other evidence 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 correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for two years and two days, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since, January, 2015, i.e. for more than 10 years, further the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail and the ends of justice would be 4 met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while keeping intact the fine amount and default sentence thereof. Further, the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. 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 Prakash