NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1026 of 2016 Vanshmani Prasad Dwivedi @ Golu S/o Late Krishna Kant Dwivedi, aged about 21 years R/o Village: Dhousad, Police Station: Shahpur, District Rewa M.P. Present Address Murrabhattha, Gudhiyari, House of Jagdish Sahu, Police Station: Gudhiyari, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station: Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 06.08 .2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2015 by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 06.11.2015 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.08.07 16:56:45 +0530 (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 12534 of 2015 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 457 of IPC RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 3 months. U/s 380 of IPC RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional SI for 3 months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2015, the complainant, J. Rangnath Rao, lodged a report at Gudhiyari Police Station stating that he is the Manager of the City Bus Depot, Amanaka. He had collected an amount of Rs. 3,08,550/- from bus operations and kept the money in a bag in the office. On the night of 12.07.2015, he placed the bag inside an almirah and locked it. The next day, the watchman informed him that the bag had been stolen from the back side of the door. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC were registered against the applicant and the stolen property was seized from the possession of the applicant-accused. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted & sentenced them as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2016, dismissed the appeal of applicant upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing 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 is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 6 months 20 days i.e. from 13.07.2015 to 06.11.2015 and 25.10.2016 to 18.01.2017, he is facing the lis since July 2015, he has no criminal antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the statements of PW-1 J. Rangnath (complainant) supported by PW-3 Pravin Pujari, PW-5 Arun Soni coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari (PW-6) and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding of fact and I hereby affirm the said finding. 8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 6 months 20 days, he is facing the lis since July 2015 i.e. for more than 10 years 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. 9. 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. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. 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 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh