1 2025:CGHC:56094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1346 of 2025 Gaurav Joshi S/o Vijay Devidas Joshi Aged About 35 Years R/o Changorabhatha, Near Sahu Aata Chakki, Raipur, Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 18/11/2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2025 (Annexuer A-1) passed by the 2 Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2022, arising out of impugned judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 221/2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.). The applicant convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default u/S 420 of the IPC RI for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- In default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant lodged report at Police Station, Balod, alleging therein that from 06.12.2014 to 29.01.2015, on the assurance of providing job to the son of complainant, the applicant has obtained Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) from the complainant and given a forged appointment order. 3. On the basis of above report, the FIR bearing no. 363/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC were registered against the applicant. 4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the competent court of law and the trial was commenced against the present applicant in Criminal Case No. 221 of 2016. 3 5. The learned trial court after recording the material witnesses examined before the learned trial court, convicted the applicant for the offence U/s 420 of IPC for the period of 3 years for R.I. with fine of Rs. 3000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. of one month. 6. Against the said judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, but the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 27.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2022 has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the appellant, which deserves to be quashed. He also submits that the appellant has no previous antecedent and is aged about 35 years. He further submits that appellant has remained in jail from 18.11.2015 to 16.02.2018 and from the date of judgment, i.e. 27.10.2025 till today. He has undergone about 02 years 03 months and 22 days, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the applicant- Chaman Lal Sahu (PW-1), Kamta Prasad Sahu (PW-2), Churaman Lal (PW-3), Donesh Kumar (PW- 4), Parth Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Nem Singh Sahu (PW-6), Roopkishan Sahu (PW-7), Bhakti Joshi (PW-8), Radheshyam Pisda (PW-9), Chunnu Jeetu Mardi (PW-10), Dinesh Kumar (PW- 11), Akhilesh Poddar (PW-12), Santosh Wankhede (PW-13), Gaurav Kiran Kumar Joshi (PW-14), R.S. Sahu (PW-15) and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court regarding conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 11. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: “9. Western jurisprudes and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it’. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 12. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by 6 learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statement given by the witnesses, thus, it is proved that on the assurance of providing job to the son of complainant, the applicant has obtained Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) from the complainant and given a forged appointment order. 13. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is RI for 3 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 02 years 03 months and 22 days and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 420 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 15. Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The applicant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case/offence. 7 17. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the applicant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Madhurima