1 2026:CGHC:5856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.126 of 2016 Shailesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ashok Kumar Sahu, aged about 24 years, Caste – Sahu, R/o Village- Sherpar, Police Station- Mohla, District – Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Divisional Forest Officer, Dalli Rajhara, District – Balod, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.8/15 arising out of judgment dated 02.01.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalli Rajhara, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.271/2013 wherein the Applicant has been convicted under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and sentenced for R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month; under Section 16 of the PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.03 14:43:10 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and sentenced for R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, additional R.I. for 15 days; under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and sentenced for R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on the intervening night of 09 and 10 July, 2013, the accused/applicant illegally cut the teak trees from the reserved forest area and transported the same unlawfully. It is further alleged that the applicant transported the same without obtaining written permission from the competent authority which constitutes the violation of Chhattisgarh Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. During the aforesaid period, the applicant cut and destroyed teak timber and other forest product, thereby causing loss to public property. On the basis of the above background, offence was registered against the applicant. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajhara, District – Durg (C.G.) against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide 3 judgment dated 02.02.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from 11.07.2013 to 08.10.2013 and from 02.02.2016 to 17.02.2016 i.e. total 106 days, he is facing the lis since 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years. She further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment. 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 M.S. Dongre (PW-05) Forest Range Officer, Dalli Rajhara, Purnima Sahu (PW-04), Rohan Lal (PW-01), Shriram (PW-02) 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 Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 106 days, he is facing the lis since 4 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, he has no criminal antecedent, he has deposited the fine amount, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 11. 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 contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash