1 / 5 2025:CGHC:53011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 535 of 2023 Brijkishore Naurange S/o. Satanandlal Naurange, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Khamhriya, P.S.- Baradwar, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through-District Magistrate, Janjgir District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Singh Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent /State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 19/10/2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa C.G. in criminal appeal No.37/2016 arising out of order dated 22/07/2016 passed by the JMFC, Sakti in complaint case No.62/2015, whereby the Sessions Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court and maintained the conviction and sentence under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced the applicant to undergo ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.04 11:36:52 +0530 2 / 5 R.I. for 03 years and pay fine amount of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine amount directed to undergo 06 months S.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28/10/2014, the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Bilaspur, Branch Baradwar submitted written information Ex.P.-1 at the Police Station Baradwar that in reference to the order number /Paddy/588/Food/2013 dated 04/06/2013 of the Office of the Collector (Food Branch), District Janjgir-Champa, dated 04/06/2013, on inspection of the paddy purchasing centre-Darrabhatha of Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited Darrabhatha registration number 926 by the joint investigation team on 19/08/2013, a shortage of 10,873.73 quintals was found in Kharif year 2012-13. In this way, a total loss of Rs. 1,65,29,593.60/- was caused and for the above loss, Paddy Procurement Centre in-charge Brajkishore Narang and President of Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited-Darrabhatha, Ramyana Sahu were jointly held responsible. Based on the written information given by Ex.P.-1, the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P.-2 was filed at the Baradwar Police Station and the trial commenced. On August 19, 2013, the paddy of the Service Cooperative Society Limited, Darrabhatha, was presented before witnesses. Panchnama Ex.P-3A of the procurement centre was prepared. On the same date, the inspection report Ex.P.-4 was prepared after inspecting the Darshamantha Cooperative Society Limited. Certificate Ex.P.-5 was issued by the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Paddy Collection Centre, Mandi Premises, Sakti, regarding the purchase of paddy. 3 / 5 3. On production by Kalaram Kahra, a paddy purchase register, proceedings register of Darrabhatha Committee and weighing sheet were seized as per Ex.P.-3. A site map of the incident was prepared as Ex.P. 6. Accused Brijkishore was arrested as per arrest memo Ex.P.-4A. Statements of witnesses were recorded. During investigation, it was found that the crime was committed jointly by the appellant/accused Brijkishore and co-accused Ramayan Sahu, but since co-accused Ramayan Sahu was absconding since the date of incident, action under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was to be taken against him. After other complete investigation, a charge sheet was prepared against accused Brijkishore and presented before the trial court. 4. On the basis of the above facts, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on separate dates and started the trial. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In the accused statement, the accused stated himself to be innocent. No oral evidence has been presented by the accused Brijkishore in his defence, whereas accused Ramayanlal Sahu has got his statement recorded as a defence witness. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the case, by its decision dated 22/07/2016 and then on 24/02/2020, respectively holding Brajkishore and appellant/accused Ramayanlal Sahu guilty of the offence under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were sentenced to the punishment R.I. for 03 years. Aggrieved by the outcome of this conviction and the sentence awarded, accused Brajkishore and Ramayanlal Sahu have filed separate appeals. Learned 4 / 5 sessions Court allowed the appeal of Ramayanlal Sahu and dismissed the appeal of the applicant. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would confine her prayer only to the sentence part only and would submit that the applicant has served almost 02 years, 06 months and 20 days of jail sentence out of three years, therefore, the jail sentence of the applicant may be reduced to the already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the applicant has misappropriated 10,873.73 quintals of paddy for the year 2012-13, therefore, the trial Court has rightly awarded the sentence, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As far as the conviction of the applicant is concerned, there is cogent reason mentioned by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate court and both the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC, however, so far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the fact that the applicant has already undergone 02 years 06 Months and 20 Days of jail sentence as the Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.62/2015 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 14/06/2023, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered maximum part of jail sentence and also agony of criminal trial for many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 03 years under Section 5 / 5 409 read with Section 34 of IPC to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 years 06 Months and 20 Days of jail sentence but the sentence with regard to payment of fine amount is affirmed. It is admitted fact that the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.3000/-, out of which the applicant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Consequently, all the pending interloucatory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu