1 2025:CGHC:56884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1064 of 2022 1 - Jagannath Prasad S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta Aged About 63 Years R/o Vil- lage - Baradwar Basti, Police Station - Baradwar, Tahsil - Shakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District - Magistrate Janjgir, District : Janj- gir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 24/11/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being heard and disposed off on the question of sentence at this stage only. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional/Upper Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2020 (Annexure A/1), afÏrming the judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti District Janjgir Champa, Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.03 17:20:36 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No. 534/2015, whereby the learned JMFC, Sakti District Janjgir Champa has convicted the applicant and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Section 420 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional R.I. Section 407 of IPC Sec. Essential R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional R.I. Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional R.I. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainants Firatram, Sarmuram Bhikham and Vrinda have filed an application before the trial Court under Section 156 (3). An application was submitted under CrPC, stating that the government had issued a ration card in his name under the Public Distribution System. The accused is the husband of Panchkumari Gupta, President of the Women's Self-Help Group, Baradwar Basti. The complainants had filed a complaint against Panchkumari Gupta, President of the Women's Self-Help Group, Secretary Shashikala Gupta, Salesman Laxmikant Gupta, and Jaganna Prasad Gupta, alleging irregularities in the distribution of food grains and distribution of less food grains. Following this, the Additional Tehsildar, Baradwar, registered a case and, after investigation, passed a final order on August 20, 2010, found accused Jagannatha Prasad Gupta guilty. An investigation by the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Sakti, also found accused Jagannatha Prasad Gupta guilty of distributing food grains. The Food Inspector, Sakti, filed a case against the President, 3 Secretary, and seller of the group at the Baradwar Police Station under sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but in collusion with the accused, no FIR was filed against him. Despite submitting an application and request to the Baradwar Police Station on 10/11/2010, no action was taken against the accused. Upon the complainants Firataram, Sarmuram, Bhikham, and Vrinda submitting an application to the trial court under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, the trial court directed the Baradwar Police Station to register the crime and proceed with the proceedings as per the rules. The Baradwar Police Station initiated the investigation. Witness statements were recorded. Property and documents were seized from V.S. Tomre as per seizure memo Ex.P.-2. A count sheet was obtained as per Ex.P.-5. Upon finding evidence of crime against the accused, FIR No. 109/11 was registered under Sections 420, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as per Ex.P.-2. The accused was arrested as per the arrest warrant, Ex.P.-13. After further investigation, a charge sheet was prepared against the accused and presented before the trial court where the trial of the case has been commenced. 4. The learned JMFC Sakti District Jangir Champa after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 01.02.2020 convicted the applicant for aforesaid offence in criminnal case No. 534/2015 and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 01.02.2020, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions 4 Judge, Sakti District Janjgir Champa. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti District Janjgir Champa by the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2022 afÏrmed the conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC Sakti District Jangir Champa. Hence, this criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. He would further submit that both the Courts below also failed to appreciate that in the present case the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainants. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the aforesaid sentences. Considering the age of the applicant as the applicant at present is aged about 63 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2010, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 7 days of jail sentence as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti District Janjgir Champa has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 534/2015 and bail was granted to them by this Court only on 19.10.2022. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 7. Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the Courts below 5 have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 420 of IPC, R.I. for two years and Section 409 of IPC, R.I. for 1 year and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, R.I. for 1 year in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for three months on each count. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in afÏrming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 10. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2010 and thereafter more than 15 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 7 days of jail sentence as the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 534/2015 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 19.10.2022, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has 6 already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for one year under Sections 420, 407 of the IPC and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 7 days of jail sentence. 11. However fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs. 5000/- under Section 420 of IPC and from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- under Section 407 of the IPC and from Rs. 500/- to 1000/- under Section Section 3/7 of Essential (total Rs.7,000/-). Enhanced fine amount i.e. Rs. 7000/- shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned trial Court. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the appellant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo as has been ordered by the learned trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 12. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 13. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti