1 2025:CGHC:52687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 88 of 2022 S.K.Dutta S/o Late Shri R.K. Dutta, Aged About 62 Years R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Abid Khan, S/o Abdul Shahid, Aged About 42 Years R/o Haldibadi, Tinadafai, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State-Respondent No.1 : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate WITH CRR No. 918 of 2021 Aabid Khan S/o Late Abdul Sahid Aged About 40 Years R/o Haldibadi, Tina Dafai Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application for seeking permission to assist the State of Chhattisgarh vis-a-vis adjudication of CRR No.918/2021. 2. On due consideration, the same is allowed. 3. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure A/1), passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.25/2019, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.240/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur at Chirmiri (C.G.) (Annexure A-2). 4. Brief facts of this case are that on 23.05.2018, the complainant S.K. Dutta, resident of Haldibazar has lodged a written complaint regarding embezzlement of money by Abid Khan, who used to work in the shop of the complainant for last 15 years and was very reliable and faithful 3 employee and therefore when the younger brother of the complainant namely Balwant Singh started a shop at Bilaspur, complainant sent the applicant to work there and on 24.10.2016, Balwant Singh handed over a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the applicant for giving it to his brother complainant S.K. Dutta, but the applicant did not gave it to complainant and when asked about the sum he said that he has kept that money for his sister's marriage and will return it afterward to the complainant. Out of the said sum the applicant has returned Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments and denied/refused to return the remaining amount and therefore the complainant has lodged FIR against the applicant and investigation was done by the concerned police authority of Police Station - Chirmiri and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. The applicant pleaded not guilty, however he has not examined any witness in defense. 6. The learned Trial Court on perusal of material available on record, convicted the present applicant for the above referred offences, vide judgment dated 18.02.2019. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2021, the applicant preferred an appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, Dist- Koriya (C.G.). The learned appellate court in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, without appreciating the evidence 4 available on record, affirmed the judgment passed by learned trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.2021. Hence this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by appellate Court as well as the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.02.2020 passed by the learned trial Court are perverse, erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the material evidence available on record, therefore not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set-aside. Both the learned Courts below have completely failed to appreciate the evidence of Lavang Singh (P.W.-6), who was stated that the FIR was lodged after one and half years of the commission of the alleged offence, which itself creates doubt that if such huge amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs was given to the applicant for giving it to the complainant and he has not given the same than immediately the complainant could have been lodged report against the applicant as applicant was alleged just to a servant in the shop. He further contended that both the Courts below further failed to appreciate that the above these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, therefore the conviction on the basis of their evidence cannot be sustained. It is pertinent to mention here that even there is no material evidence available on record to convict the applicant. The learned trial Court without any documentary evidence in support of the complaint made by the complainant has convicted the applicant for aforesaid crime 5 only on oral complaint. He further contended that it is noteworthy to mention here that Laxmichand (P.W.3) and Gurdeep Singh (P.W.4) have denied that sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs was given to the applicant by brother of the complainant Balwant Singh and have not supported the prosecution case, but the both the Courts have paid no consideration on their evidence and have convicted the applicant and which was subsequently affirmed by the learned appellate Court. The findings recorded by the both the Courts below against the applicant is perverse, illegal, erroneous and without any basis and not sustainable before the eyes of law, therefore liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned orders and submits that impugned orders are well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned orders, hence, the same may be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and entire facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court passed the judgment after considering the entire facts of the case. Complainant - 6 S.K. Dutta can take action as per law for recovery of the amount from Aabid Khan for criminal breach of trust. It is admitted fact that the accused was used to work in the shop of the complainant for last 15 years and thereafter he committed the alleged offence. There is no previous antecedent against the appellant, at the time of incident, he was aged about 40 years and he served out the jail sentence about 81/2 months out of two years of jail sentence, I am of the view that sentence imposed upon appellant by trial Court of two years is on higher side. Accordingly, substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellant of two years is reduced to one year. However, sentence of fine awarded by trial Court is hereby affirmed. Ordered accordingly. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He shall serve out the remaining jail sentence as modified above. 13. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant shall undergo his jail sentence to serve the same and the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal 7 Services Committee. 14. The trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action, if any. 15. Consequently, CRR No.918 of 2021 is partly allowed and CRR No.88 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant