1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2011 Ajay @ Papu Rawat, S/o Hemnarayan Rawat, aged about 42 years, R/o Behind High Court, Tikrapara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Kawardha, District Kawardha (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2010 whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, in Criminal Case No.775/2009, convicting the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000 and R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs1,000/-, in PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.09 17:15:28 +0530 2 default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days, 1 month, 1 month and 1 month respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the applicant – Ajay @ Pappu Rawat along with one Shailesh Devangan went to the house of Kotwar Shatrughan Gandharva and received Rs.50,000/- on assurance that he would provide them government job and gave them forged appointment order. It is alleged that the applicant made forged signature and has cheated him. On the basis of the above background, the offence was registered against the applicant and, thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pandariya, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2011 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for more than 1 year and 7 months i.e. from 06.09.2009 to 11.05.2011, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years, and at present, he is aged about 60 3 years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. 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 supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of Khem Singh (PW-01), B.S. Chauhan, ASI (PW-13), Ishwar Gandharwa (PW-02), Shatrughan (PW-03), Rupendra Singh Thakur (PW-04) supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for more than 1 year and 7 months, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years and at present he is aged about 60 years, further, he has no criminal antecedent and, the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is 4 reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year and 7 months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby 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 contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash