2025:CGHC:50235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2196 of 2024 Raghvendra Narwariya S/o Gauricharan Narwariya Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 18, Balwantpur Thatipur Police Station Thatipur District - Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Lalbag Outpost Tumdibod District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005), Rajnandgaon, CG in Special Case-08 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor’s Interest Act, 2005 (For short, ‘the Act, 2005’), and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.10 17:31:56 +0530 Cra 2196 of 2025 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that present appellant along with other co- accused persons, started financial company in name of BNP Insurance and Investment Services India Limited (henceforth, ‘financial company’), and started their business at Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Present appellant was the Managing Director of the Company, while other co-accused persons were Directors. The financial company was registered under Section 357 A of the Company Registration Act, by the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior. Present appellant was having 11,000 equity shares in the financial company, and during business, they collected huge amount from the investors on the pretext that the financial company will return the money with higher interest. After collecting huge money of more than Rs.32,52,645/-, they closed it, and fled away. 3. Complainant Kamlabai, PW34 (investor) lodged a written complaint Ex.P123 at Gram-Suraj, Dongargaon, on the basis of which FIR has been registered for the offence under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC. Police had made communication to the Reserve Bank of India through its letter Ex.P298, the Registrar of the Company was informed vide Ex.P295, and SEBI vide Ex.P296, and collected details of the said financial company. During investigation, various Bonds issued by the financial company have been seized by the Investigating Officer from the Investors, and after collecting the relevant material, concluded the investigation, and filed chargesheet before the learned CJM, Rajnandgaon. Case was committed to the learned trial Court for its trial. 4. Learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 10 of the Act, 2005. He abjured his guilt and claimed trial. Cra 2196 of 2025 3 5. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 96 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the accused appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. Learned counsel also submits that since the appellant was arrested, and is in jail for other offences, he was stated to be also involved in the present offence. 6. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that appellant is not challenging his conviction, however, he only challenging the sentence awarded to him for the alleged offence excessive sentence has been awarded to him. Offence of Section 10 of the Act, 2005 provides minimum sentence of three years, whereas the appellant was awarded RI for 7 years, and he is in jail since 08.04.2019. Thereby, he has completed more than 6 years and 6 months of his sentence, and therefore, he prayed for reduction of his sentence for the period already undergone by him. It is also submitted that appellant was 43 years of age at the time of his arrest, and he was having various responsibilities of his family, his property has been attached by the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, and he served almost his entire sentence awarded to him. Cra 2196 of 2025 4 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose learned counsel for the appellant, and would submit that considering nature of offence, and the manner in which it was committed, huge amount was collected by the appellant from the innocent depositors, appellant is not entitled for any leniency, and the appeal filed by him is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence led by the prosecution, and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Learned trial court has examined the evidence of the witnesses PW1 to PW96, and divided the category of the witnesses as per their involvement, to whom the depositors have deposited the amount in the financial company. Learned trial Court has divided the witnesses in ten groups to whom the depositors deposited their amount. Most of them said that they deposited their amount in the financial company through their Agent. Various bonds have also been proved by the prosecution in the form of documents Ex.P1 to E.P4. After a detailed and meticulous examination of the evidence collected, learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the present appellant is the Managing Director of the said financial company, who is responsible for the business of the company, and collected huge amount from the depositors, and failed to re-pay the same to the investors. After considering the entire transactions of the financial company, learned trial Court opined that appellant collected money from the investors and cheated the innocent depositors, which Cra 2196 of 2025 5 covered under the definition of offence punishable under Section 10 of the Act, 2005. Hence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the alleged offence, in which I do not find any infirmity or perversity with the facts and evidence available on record, and this court affirm the said conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 10 of the Act, 2005. 12. So far as sentence part is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was aged about 43 years of age at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed, was having various responsibilities of his family, his entire property has been attached by the District Magistrate, and out of seven years sentence, he has already undergone more than six years and six months of sentence, and minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 10 of the Act, 2005 is only of three years, and therefore, prayer of learned counsel for the appellant that sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him, is appealing to this Court. 13. Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State Cra 2196 of 2025 6 has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 14. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Giasuddin (supra) case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced for the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 10 of the Act, 2005, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence, as well as the default stipulation shall remain intact. Cra 2196 of 2025 7 16. Appellant is reported to be in jail since 08.04.2019, and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to compliance of fine sentence, and default stipulation. 17. Record of trial court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma