1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 996 of 2016 Gulsher Khan S/o Gulam Mohammad Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Near P.T.S. Mana Camp, Quarter No.4, Police Station - Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisharh., ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Suraj Jaiswal appears on behalf of Smt. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 09/10/2025 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.62/2016, affirming the judgment dated 05.03.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.621/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is alleged to have obtained Rs.2.60 lacs from the complainant Surendra Nath Mishra (P.W.1) on different dates on the false pretext of providing employment to the son of the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.10.09 16:03:40 +0530 2 complainant in the Police Department, but son of the complainant did not get any such employment. Thereafter, the complainant, feeling himself being cheated at the hands of the applicant, lodged a written report on 01.08.2011 before the Senior Police Superintendent, Raipur vide Ex.P.1. On the basis of written report, FIR (Ex.P-3) has been lodged against the applicant under Section 420 of IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of C.J.M. Raipur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of JMFC as well as the 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 press this revision on conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that applicant remained in jail for a period of 60 days, i.e., from 03.08.2011 till 06.08.2011 and from 30.08.2016 to 25.10.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since August, 2011, i.e., for more than 14 years. He also submits that during bail granted by this Court, he never misused the liberty granted to him and that fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned trial Court. Therefore, 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. 8. Considering the statement of the complainant – Surendra Nath Mishra (P.W.1) supported by the evidence of P.W.4 Lalaram Sahu, P.W.2 Jameela, P.W.5 Pradeep Kumar, P.W.4 S. Bhoi, Investigating Officer as well as the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court, being 3 based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant. 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 60 days, has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since August 2011 i.e. for more than 14 years, 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 JMFC as well as that of Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence 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 him. 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani