1 2025:CGHC:37766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2851 of 1999 1. Santosh Kumar Soni, son of Chandrika Prasad Soni, aged about 22 years, occupation Private Service, R/o Guderi Bazar, Ambikapur, Nearn Dushmesh Hospital, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, (M.P.)[ Now Chhattisgarh] 2. Rajesh Kumar Peshwani,@ Rajendra Peshwani @ Bambaiya Son of Late Madhav Rao Peshwani, aged about 27 years, Occupation Sales- man, R/o Ajanta Stores, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (M.P.) [Now Chhattisgarh] ... Appellants versus The State through the C.B.I. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastva, Govt. Advocate, as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 31.07.2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 06.10.1999 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, C.B.I. Jabalpur in Special Case No.38/1997, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:45:12 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Under Section 468/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Under Section 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during June and July 1993, the deceased accused Lochan Prasad Choudhary was posted as Postmaster, the deceased Atma Ram Jangde served as Postal Assistant and Ledger Clerk, and accused L.P. Mishra was posted as Additional Postmaster at the Head Post Office, Ambikapur, all in their capacity as public servants. Accused L.P. Mishra, in conspiracy with the above- named deceased and co-accused Suraj Soni, Santosh Kumar Soni, and Rajesh Kumar Peshwani, hatched a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Head Post Office. In furtherance of this conspiracy, false and inflated entries were made in the RD (Recurring Deposit) accounts of two depositors — Sachindra Kumar Mishra (Account No. 33699) and Deepak Kumar Peshwani (Account No. 33562) — with the intent to 3 fraudulently withdraw Rs. 35,762/- and Rs. 35,507.50/-, respectively. Deceased Atma Ram Jangde made fictitious entries in the ledger of Sachindra Kumar Mishra’s account, which was originally opened with a monthly deposit of Rs. 600/- through agent Mrs. Mala Singh. Similarly, false entries were made in Deepak Kumar Peshwani’s account. Accused Rajesh Kumar Peshwani obtained Sachindra Kumar Mishra’s signature on blank withdrawal slips under false assurances and, along with accused Santosh Kumar Soni, submitted withdrawal slips bearing forged signatures to illegally withdraw funds. These slips are - Ex. P-04, P-05, P-08, and P-09, which were used to fraudulently withdraw a total of Rs. 71,269.75/-, which was received by accused Rajesh Kumar Peshwani and passed for payment by accused L.P. Mishra. Thus, by forging records, making false entries, and withdrawing funds illegally, the accused caused wrongful loss to the Head Post Office, Ambikapur, and committed serious financial fraud under a pre-planned criminal conspiracy. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before jurisdictional criminal Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants, namely, Rajendra Kumar Peshwani and Santosh Kumar Soni, are 58 years and 53 years of age, respectively, as such, he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines their argument to the sentence part only. It is further submitted that the appellant, namely, 4 Rajendra Kumar Peshwani, has remained in custody for not a single day as he has deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, but as the appellant namely, Santosh Kumar Soni could not pay the fine amount, he has remained in custody for about 1 year 1 month and 26 days in jail, and the appellants are facing the criminal proceedings since 1994, i.e. for about 31 years. Looking to the age of the appellants i.e. 58 years and 53 years, respectively, the jail sentence awarded to appellant, namely, Rajendra Kumar Peshwani may be considered as undergone by enhancing the fine amount, and the jail sentence awarded to the appellant namely, Santosh Kumar Soni, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 1 month and 26 days, as the appellants have already been suffered criminal proceedings since 31 years. To buttress her submissions, reliance has been placed upon the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Sundara Kumar v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilence and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, District Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 61, V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 458 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and submitted that the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act’) as well as under the Indian Penal Code, but he could not dispute the fact that the appellants are old persons aged about 58 years and 53 years, respectively as it transpires that they are facing the criminal proceedings since 31 years. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. As the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has confined his submissions with regard to the sentence part only, this Court does not wish to discuss the case on merits, so far as conviction part is concerned. 9. In the matter of S. Sundara Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that out of two years' sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to that of one year and one month rigorous imprisonment.” 10. In the matter of V.K. Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but 6 enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction” 11. In the matter of M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “10.Now coming to the question of sentence, the offence took place in the year 1981. All these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has also lost his job and has a large family to support. It is also stated that he has become sick and Infirm. He has been in jail for some time. For all these special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, we confirm the sentence of fine with default clause. Accordingly, subject to the modification of sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed” 12. The offence is said to have taken place way back in the year 1993-1994. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B, Section 468/471 read with Section 120-B, Section 477A read with Section 120-B of the IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of the IPC. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC, however, there is a minimum sentence of one year prescribed for the offence under the PC Act (as it then was). 13. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that when the FIR for alleged offence was lodged in the year 1994 against the appellants, they were aged about 22 years and 27 years and now after lapse of about 31 years, they would be aged about 53 years and 58 years, respectively. All these years, the appellants have undergone the agony of criminal proceedings till now and they have also lost their jobs and have a large family to support. It is also stated that appellant – 7 Santosh Kumar Soni has already undergone jail sentence for a period of 1 year 1 month and 26 days and appellant – Rajesh Kumar Peshwani @ Rajendra Peshwani @ Bambaiya has not served any jail sentence. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the extraordinary lapse of 31 years since the commission of the offence, the young age of the appellants at the relevant time (22 and 27 years), the prolonged ordeal and mental agony they have faced due to protracted criminal proceedings, and the fact that both appellants have already suffered loss of employment and severe social and financial consequences, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met without requiring further incarceration. It is also relevant to note that, while the offences under the IPC provisions (Sections 420/120-B, 468/471/120-B, 477-A/120-B) do not carry any minimum sentence, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it stood at the relevant time, prescribed a minimum sentence of one year. In the present case, appellant Santosh Kumar Soni has already undergone 1 year 1 month and 26 days of imprisonment, thereby satisfying even the statutory minimum requirement under the PC Act. In view of this, and guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Sundara Kumar (supra), V.K. Verma (supra), and M.W. Mohiuddin (supra), wherein long passage of time, old age, ill-health, and prolonged litigation were treated as special reasons for reduction of sentence while maintaining conviction, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the sentence rather than disturb the conviction. 15. Accordingly, in so far as appellant Santosh Kumar Soni is concerned, while his conviction for the aforesaid offences stands upheld, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period 8 already undergone, i.e., 1 year 1 month and 26 days in custody, which satisfies even the minimum statutory requirement under the Prevention of Corruption Act as applicable at the relevant time. 16. Accordingly, in so far as appellant Rajesh Kumar Peshwani is concerned, while his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120- B IPC, 468/471/120-B IPC, 477-A/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B IPC stands affirmed, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him, though he has not undergone jail sentence for a single day but, considering the extraordinary lapse of 31 years since the offence, the prolonged mental agony suffered due to protracted proceedings, and the reformative rather than retributive approach of criminal justice. However, in order to maintain the deterrent element of punishment and ensure balance of equities, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall stand enhanced by Rs.2,000/- for each offence, in addition to the fine already awarded by the trial Court. 17. It is made clear that the enhanced fine amount of Rs.2,000/- (for each offence) shall be deposited by the appellant, namely, Rajesh Kumar Peshwani @ Rajendra Peshwani @ Bambaiya, before the trial Court concerned within a period of three months from today and the same shall be paid to Government Special School for Intellectually Retarded Girls, Gaganpur, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.), in addition to the amount already awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. It is Ordered accordingly. 18. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction 9 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, is hereby affirmed. 19. Since the appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 20. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek/Rahul