1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 239 of 2016 • Kamlesh @ Ashok, S/o Mohan Lal Halba, R/o Village: Dhotimatola, Police Station: Dondi, Civil and Revenue District: Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police of Police Station: Dallirajhara, District: Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24.01 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2000036/2013 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. wherein, the applicant has been convicted and SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.24 16:58:35 +0530 2 sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.05.2011, PW-1/complainant Dhannu Sahu, Civil Contractor, lodged a report at Police Station: Dallirajhara stating therein that on 17.02.2011, applicant who was employed with him has taken 95 bags of cement from Deepesh Traders worth Rs. 25,000/-, without the knowledge of his employer and he did not pay the said amount. On 19.02.2011, applicant executed one stamp paper and admitted the above fact, thereafter, FIR was registered against the applicant. 3. Based upon the aforesaid complaint and evidence on record, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District: Durg (C.G.) registered a Criminal Case No. 194/2011 under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC against the applicant/accused. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant for the offence under Section 406 of IPC, but convicted and sentenced the applicant under Section 420 of IPC as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2016, dismissed the appeal 3 upholding the judgment of the trial Court and maintained the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Aggrieved therewith, the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants 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 in the present case, the applicant has remained in jail for 3 months and 21 days days i.e. from 28.05.2011 to 05.08.2011 (2 months and 7 days) and from 02.02.2016 to 16.03.2016 (1 month and 14 days) and he is facing the lis since May, 2011, i.e. for more than 13 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Dhannu Sahu (complainant), PW-2 Dwarika Prasad, PW-5 Chetan Thakur, PW-6 Nandlal, Head Constable, PW-7 Gautamchandra and the other evidence available 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 correct fact of finding. 4 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 3 months and 21 days, he is facing the lis since May, 2011 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