1 CGHC010007912016 2026:CGHC:27809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 663 of 2016 1. Rajendra Dhruv S/o Shri Mahettar Ram Dhruv Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Imlipadar, Police Station And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2. Satyanand Patel S/o Laxminath Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Uparpara Antagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker, (C.G.), in criminal appeal No. 11/2013, arising out of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, in criminal case No. 153/2013, whereby the applicants were convicted and sentenced as under :- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.08 11:06:59 +0530 2 CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.07.2010, the Chief Municipal Officer (C.M.O.), Antagarh, lodged an F.I.R. alleging that certain employees had embezzled amounts of Rs. 4,59,980/-, Rs. 1,29,897/-, Rs. 6,850/-, and Rs. 3,750/-, aggregating to Rs. 6,00,477/-. It was further alleged that, despite issuance of notices to the concerned employees on 29.06.2010, they failed to deposit the said amount. It was further alleged that 1,600 receipt books were printed and issued to H.S. Netam, Rajendra Dhruv, Mahendra Singh Soni, and Satyanarayan Patel for the purpose of collecting taxes from the public and depositing the same into the Government Treasury. However, it was found that, up to 3 31.01.2010, a sum of Rs. 5,75,931/- had been collected but was not deposited into the Treasury. It was further alleged that 991 receipts were issued, out of which an amount of Rs. 4,94,000/- was required to be collected, however, only Rs. 34,020/- was deposited. According to the audit report, the alleged embezzlement was committed by Satyanand Patel, C.L. Patohiya, Rajendra Dhruv, and Mahendra Soni. 3. Pursuant to the F.I.R., the concerned police registered Crime No. 44/2011 on 02.08.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 409/34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, and 205/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the guilt of the applicants, the prosecution examined 73 witnesses. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, framed charges against the applicants and the co-accused. The applicants and the co-accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2013 convicted the applicants for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 - 02 years and imposed fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment further R.I. for 03 months for each offences. (all the sentences shall run concurrently). 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2013, the applicants preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court released the applicants on bail. However, without properly considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the learned Appellate Court summarily 4 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 05.07.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2013. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicants is 2 years and the applicants have already suffered 1 year, 01 month and 22 days of jail sentence and have already deposited the fine amount imposed upon them. He further submits that considering age of the applicants at present who are aged about 55 and 40 years and they have been facing criminal trial since 2012 and thereafter more than 15 years have been elapsed, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 7. Learned State counsel submits that both the Courts have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In the appeal preferred by the applicants, the appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5 10. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicants have faced criminal trial since 23.01.2012 to 06.05.2013 and though the appeal is also continued for about 03 years and this revision petition has been pending since 14.07.2016 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 13 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicants at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicants for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code is RI for 02 – 02 years for each offences and the applicants have already suffered jail sentence near about 01 year, 01 month and 21 days and have already deposited the fine amount imposed upon them, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicants again in jail as they have already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from R.I. for 02 – 02 years for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively to the period already undergone by the applicants. Ordered accordingly. 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek