NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1132 of 2016 Mahesh Kumar Chandwani S/o Late Chouthmal Chandwani, aged about 43 years R/o Uttam General Store Thakur Road Jagdalpur, Police Station: Kotwali Jagdalpur, Revenue and Civil District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station: Kotwali, District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 07.03 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 03.12.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place: Jagdalpur (C.G.) whereby the appeal of the applicant, filed SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.03.07 15:47:12 +0530 against the judgment dated 15.09.2016 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District: Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 624 of 2015 has been dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 4 (A) of Public Gambling Act, 1867 SI for 1 month with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 11.05.2015, police of Police Station: Kotwali, Jagdalpur, had received a secret information that the applicant is playing gamble (Satta Patti) near Thakur road in Uttam Kirana Stores and upon receiving such information, the police officials conducted raid and found the applicant betting and seized two mobile phones and Satta Patti Fard, in which Rs. 1,11,500/- were recorded and Rs. 54,516/- and one ball pen was also seized. On the basis of aforesaid, the offence under Section 4 (A) of Public Gambling Act, 1867 was registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District: Bastar (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. Learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted & sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1. Hence, this revision. Page 3 of 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant 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 the applicant has remained in jail for 6 days i.e. from 03.12.2016 to 08.12.2016, he is facing the lis since May 2015, i.e. for more than 9 years, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 7. Considering the statements of PW-3 Lakhan Patel (Investigating Officer) supported by the statements of PW-1 Akash Mishra and PW-2 Harish Parekh and other evidence 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 a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. As regards the sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for 6 days, he is facing the lis since May 2015 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