1 2026:CGHC:464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2012 1 - Chhotelal S/o Dayaram Chandra, Aged About 41 Years, 2 - Gajpati S/o Dayaram Chandra, Aged About 43 Years, Both are R/o Village Singhra, PS Malkharouda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, District Magistrate Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.12.2012 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.172/2010 arising out of judgment dated 22.10.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharouda (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1393/2009 wherein the Applicant No.1 – Chhotelal has been convicted under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.06 13:13:00 +0530 2 sentenced for R.I. for 6 months, R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.100/- and R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-, whereas Applicant No.2 – Gajpati has been convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month each. The sentences awarded to Applicant No.1 were directed to run concurrently. However, the Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment, affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, A.K. Bajpayee (PW-11), registered the offence on the basis of a letter dated 06.03.1998 issued by the Superintendent of Police. The said letter was based on a complaint sent by certain unknown persons and addressed to the local M.L.A., alleging that Applicant No.1, Chhotelal, had secured employment by using the certificate of his real brother. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, an investigation was conducted, during which it was found that Applicant No.1 had taken undue advantage of his brother’s certificate to obtain appointment to the post of constable. Thus, Applicant No.1 committed cheating by impersonating his brother and securing the said employment. On the basis of the above facts, offence was registered against the applicants, and thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malkharouda against the applicants, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary 3 evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2012 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants have remained in jail for 5 days i.e. from 10.12.2012 to 14.12.2012, and that they have been facing the lis since December, 1998 i.e. for more than 27 years, and at present, applicants are more than 70 years of age. Furthermore, they have no criminal antecedent, and at the relevant time, Applicant No.1 – Chhotelal had resigned from the service of police department in 1985. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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 Rajkumar (PW-07), Ram Prasad Patel (PW-08) and the then Station House Officer A.K. Bajpayee (PW-11), 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 4 Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicants, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail for 05 days, they are facing the lis since 1998 i.e. for more than 27 years and at present Applicants are more than 70 years old, they have no criminal antecedent, further during trial and appeal, they were granted bail and they have not misused the liberty granted to them, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 05 days. However, the jail sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Sections are affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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