1 CGHC010282172016 2026:CGHC:27808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 628 of 2016 Chhannulal Patohiya S/o Premlal Patohiya Aged About 53 Years By Caste Mahra, R/o. Village Dindori, Police Station and Distt. Dindori (M.P.), Present Chief Municipal Corporation Officer, Nagar Panchayat Aarang, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kanker, Distt. Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, 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. 10/2013, 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 applicant was convicted and sentenced as under :- 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. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.08 11:07:00 +0530 2 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 prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period from 17.10.2008 to 16.07.2010, the applicant, while serving as the Chief Municipal Officer, Antagarh, failed to properly supervise the co-accused persons, which allegedly resulted in a financial loss of Rs. 5,75,921/- to the Municipal Council. It is alleged that although the co-accused had collected tax amounts from consumers and issued receipts to them, the said amounts were not deposited with the Municipal Council, Antagarh. It is further alleged that the amounts collected through the receipt books were not entered in the stock register or other relevant records. During the course of the audit, it was allegedly found that the co-accused had attempted to conceal the receipt books. It is further alleged that, on the instructions of the applicant, 1,600 receipt books were printed and handed over to the co-accused for the purpose of collecting market tax. According to the 3 prosecution, a total sum of Rs. 4,59,930/- was collected through the said receipt books, but the amount was not entered in the stock register. Consequently, it is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused committed criminal breach of trust and other allied offences. The prosecution further alleges that, being the Chief Municipal Officer, the applicant had signed the stock register and cash book relating to the amounts collected through the receipt books but failed to verify or reconcile the entries in the receipt books with those in the stock register and cash book. On that basis, the applicant has also been held criminally liable. 3. It is further alleged that, during the audit, it was found that out of 1,500 receipt books, 509 receipt books had been issued, through which an amount of Rs. 4,94,000/- was collected, whereas only Rs. 34,020/- was deposited with the Municipal Council. The prosecution further alleges that, for the purpose of collecting market tax, the applicant had appointed one Panchayat Karmi, Satyanand Patel, and that Rajendra Dhruw and Mahendra Soni, who were also Panchayat Karmis, were similarly entrusted with receipt books for collecting the market tax. However, the amounts allegedly collected by them were not deposited. It is, therefore, alleged that the applicant failed to properly supervise the said persons, resulting in criminal breach of trust by the applicant and the co-accused. 4. On the basis of these allegations, a written complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Kanker. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and the co- accused on 23.01.2012. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, framed charges against the applicant and the co-accused. The applicant and the co-accused 4 denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 71 witnesses. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2013 convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him 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). 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2013, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court released the applicant on bail. However, without properly considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the learned Appellate Court summarily dismissed the appeal vide order dated 05.07.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2013. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant is 2 years and the applicant has already suffered 1 year, 01 month and 7 days of jail sentence and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him. She further submits that considering age of the applicant at present who is aged about 63 years and as he has been facing criminal trial since 2012 and thereafter more than 15 years have been elapsed, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 8. Learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. 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 applicant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In the appeal preferred by the applicant, 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. 11. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant has 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 07.07.2016 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 13 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering the fact that the term of maximum sentence awarded to the applicant 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 applicant has already suffered jail sentence near about 1 year, 01 month and 7 days and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has 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 6 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 applicant. Ordered accordingly. 12. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 13. 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