2025:CGHC:50066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1079 of 2016 Parmanand Verma S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Surajpura, Police Station Lohara, Civil and Revenue District: Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate/ Station House Officer, Police Station: Khamahariya, District: Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. This Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.10.09 10:35:38 +0530 dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District: Bemetara, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.01.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District: Bemetara, in Criminal Case No. 443 of 2009. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused/applicant of all charges. However, in the appeal filed by the State, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused/applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six (06) months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.03.2010 at about 04:00 PM, the accused-applicant went to the house of the complainant, namely Santosh Patel, and cheated him by falsely representing that he was working for a company, namely Ultra Vista, which was establishing a mobile tower. By this representation, he dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the relevant documents for his field. Through the aforesaid inducement, the applicant-accused received Rs. 70,000/- each, totaling Rs. 1,40,000/-, for establishing a tower in the fields of the complainant, Santosh Patel, and his father-in-law, Neturam. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant under Section 420 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the State in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2016, allowed the appeal and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this Judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel 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 according to him is on higher side. He submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 34 days i.e. from 08.11.2011 to 24.11.2011 and 18.11.2016 to 05.12.2016, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years and at present, the age of the applicant is 55 years and he has already deposited the fine amount Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-1 Santosh Patel, supported by PW-3 Ashwini Patel and PW-4 Neturam Sahu and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. 9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 34 days, he is facing the lis since 2011 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 481 of B.N.S.S. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh