1 2026:CGHC:22610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1251 of 2025 • Devnarayan Yadav, S/o Biranchi Yadav, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Shritoli, Patratoli, P.S. Duldula, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Lukash Kumar Mishra and Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocates. For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu and Mr. Amiya Bhushan, Panel Lawyers. CRR No. 1265 of 2025 • Hemanand Yadav, S/o Tudeshwar Yadav, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village- Puranga, Police Station- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ---Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.). --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sejal Makkad, Advocate appeared through video conferencing on behalf of Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu and Mr. Amiya Bhushan, Panel Lawyers. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 13/05/2026 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.05.13 18:13:08 +0530 2 1. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 25.09.2025, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The applicants have preferred these present criminal revisions under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), assailing the judgment dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2024. By the said judgment, the learned appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.714/2023, has set aside the conviction of the applicants under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), however, the conviction under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, with a default stipulation of six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment, has been affirmed. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant- Jai Prakash Sonwani, working as Assistant Manager in Secure Value India Limited, lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Pathalgaon alleging that the company was entrusted with the work of cash loading in various ATMs, including the Axis Bank ATM at Pathalgaon. The accused persons, namely Hemanand Yadav and Devanarayan Yadav, were appointed for carrying out ATM cash loading work. It is alleged that after obtaining passwords from the company for loading cash into 3 the ATM, the accused persons initially reported successful loading of cash, but subsequently informed the company that the loading process had been cancelled and thereafter switched off their mobile phones. During physical verification of the ATM, a cash shortage of Rs.36,86,200/- was detected. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by the complainant, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. However, the applicants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 2 of this order. Hence, these revisions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants jointly submit that they does not want to press these revisions on conviction part of the applicants, but confines their argument to the sentence part only, which according to them, is on higher side. They further submit that applicants remained in jail from 28.08.2023 to 26.07.2024 (10 months and 27 days) and from 25.09.2025 till date, they are in jail, (7 months and 18 days), totaling 1 year, 6 months and 14 days. They also submit that they have no criminal antecedents and are a young men aged about 27 years. It is also submitted that the fine amount has already been deposited with 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 opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgments. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and 4 perused the record. 8. Considering the testimonies of the complainant/PW-1 Jai Prakash Sonwani, PW-2 Shivkumar Manjre, PW-3 Sachin Rajwade, PW-4 Deepak Bairagi, PW-9 Amit Kumar Verma, Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Pathalgaon, and PW-11 Mithlesh Yadav, Inspector, along with the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of conviction of the applicants is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that the applicants have already undergone a jail sentence of 1 year, 6 months and 14 days and that they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the fine amount along with the default stipulation intact. Ordered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the both the criminal revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. It is reported that the applicants are in jail. Accordingly, it is directed that they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 12. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be 5 transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh