1 2025:CGHC:57708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 60 of 2025 1 - Purnendra Dewangan S/o Shambhucharan Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Rampur, Post- Katangi, Police Station- Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dheerendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Badri Prasad Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Jaawalpur, Police Station- Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Centre, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For appellants : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble S hri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 27.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been 2led under Section 16 of Chhattisgarh Depositors Interest Act, 2005 by the appellants against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special (PDI Act) Case No. 04/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Section Sentenced Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.10 10:51:00 +0530 2 10 of Chhatisgarh Protec- tion of Depositor Interest Act (PDI Act) 2005 (for each of the appellants.) R.I. for 7 years & 2ne of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of 2ne 1 year of R.I. (for each of the appellants.) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during years 2014-2017 in District Rajnandgaon, the appellants instituted a 2nancial institution namely Shubh Sai Devcon India Ltd. Total amount of Rs. 23,54,150/- was collected from general public as deposition. While returning the investments to investors, the fraudulent default is al- leged against the appellants. On the said complaint of the com- plainant, the Basantpur Police Station, has registered a case under Crime No. 371/2016 against the accused/appellants. After comple- tion of investigation, the appellants have been arrested. The charge-sheet was 2led for the aforesaid o@ences against the appel- lants / accused before the competent Court against the appellants. 3. In order to bring home the above-stated o@ences, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses. Statement of the accused/ap- pellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which they denied their guilt and have taken the stand that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 20.12.2024, convicted the appellants for the o@ence punishable under Section 10 Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act 3 and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction of the appellants is erroneous, contrary to the evidence and is bad in law. Learned counsel below failed to appreciate the fact that the appel- lants were in jail in another criminal case while the bonds of the in- vestors were not mature and in a hurried manner the complainant had lodged the report against the appellants for fraudulent default in repayment of investments. He further submits that none of the com- petent authority under the Act of 2005 had approved or directed to register the criminal case against the appellants even then the pros- ecution against the appellants was continued. He further submits that being in jail before maturity of bonds, the appellants could not have conspired to fraudulently default in repayment of investors bonds. None of the seizures were made from the appellants from which it could be ascertained that the appellants defaulted in pay- ment of depositions. He further submits that all the properties in the name of the appellants’ company have been attached and auc- tioned by the prescribed authorities. Rs. 14,50,000/- has already been disbursed to the actual investors and Rs. 43,853/- is remain- ing before the competent authority. Considering of recovery was re- paid to the investors, in such cases the appellants could be acquit- ted. Therefore, it becomes doubtful and the appellants may be ac- quitted by extending bene2t of doubt. Ultimately, he submits that in the event the conviction of the appellants is upheld, looking to the evidence, the sentence which has been awarded appears to be ir- 4 rational and requires reduction. Therefore, the sentence awarded may be reduced to period already undergone by enhancing the 2ne amount and awarding compensation to the injured. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State rep- resented by Inspector of Police in CRA No. 3619 of 2023. 6. Learned State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid o@ences. As such, the appeal de- serves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. It is admitted fact that The appellants have collected total sum of Rs. 23, 54, 150/- from the general public fraudulently. The appel- lant No. 1 has been remained in custody from 02.02.2018 to 20.02.2020 (total 02 years and 18 days) and the appellant No. 2 has been remained in custody from 02.02.2018 to 06.03.2020 (2 years, 1 months and 4 days and the appellants are in jail since 20.12.2024, total custody period of the appellants is more than 3 years. The trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor Interest Act and sen- tenced them R.I. for 7 years with 2ne of Rs. 1 Lakh. On perusal of document dated 13.11.2025, it transpires the fact that all the prop- erties in the name of appellants and in the name of appellants’ com- pany have been attached and auctioned by the prescribed authori- 5 ties and Rs. 14,06,165/- has already been disbursed to the actual investors and Rs. 43,853 is remaining before the Competent Au- thority. 9. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record, this Court 2nds no in2rmity in the 2ndings recorded by the learned Special Judge holding the appellants guilty for the o@ence punishable under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. The prosecution has successfully established that the appellants, through the institution namely Shubh Sai Devcon India Ltd., collected deposits from the general public amounting to Rs. 23,54,150/- and failed to return the in- vested amount, thereby committing default in repayment to the de- positors, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 2nd- ings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Inter- est Act, 2005 is based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and is hereby maintained. 10.However, with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is evident from the record that the competent authority has already attached and auctioned the properties standing in the name of the appellants and their company, and a substantial amount of Rs. 14,06,165/- has al- ready been disbursed to the actual investors, while only Rs. 43,853/- remains for distribution. It is also not disputed that the ap- pellant No. 1 has been remained in custody from 02.02.2018 to 20.02.2020 (total 02 years and 18 days) and the appellant No. 2 has been remained in custody from 02.02.2018 to 06.03.2020 (2 6 years, 1 months and 4 days and the appellants are in jail since 20.12.2024, thus they have undergone more than three years of im- prisonment. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the recovery made and repayment to the investors, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed requires modi2cation in the interest of justice. 11.Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four years for each of the appellants. The 2ne imposed by the trial Court is maintained. 12.The appellants are in jail and they shall serve out the sentence as modi0ed above. 13.With the above modi2cation in sentence, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The rest of the judgment of conviction is aGrmed. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti