1 CGHC010005512009 2026:CGHC:27770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 141 of 2009 Prakashchand Shrivastava Aged About 50 Years (Currently Aged About 67 Years) S/o Late Manmohanlal, R/o Shitla Ward Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Along with CRR No. 143 of 2009 1. Gokul Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma, Aged About 50 Years (Currently Aged About 67 Years), Occupation Samiti Prabandhak, R/o Kailash Nagar Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma, Aged About 50 Years (Currently Aged About 67 Years), Occupation Samiti Prabandhak, R/o Ward No.16, Kawardha, Police Station – Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Along with CRR No. 144 of 2009 Ramji Sirdar, S/o Bahalram Sirdar, Aged About 46 Years (Currently Aged About 72 Years), R/o Sirdar Khapri, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. These criminal revisions are preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 52/2007, 01/2008 and 03/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District – Kabirdham (C.G.), arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 571/2006, whereby, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code (For short, IPC) Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 6 months of additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 467 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 6 months of additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 465 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that upon an report of an officer in-charge namely shri J.P.Gupta, As per his finding there are various 3 misconduct in the services provided to the Farmers who are the members of the society. The Operation and working of the co- operative society was to provide various insetisides and pesticides to its members at the cheapest rate. The society was run under the directions of the State Government. In the year between 1982-83 on the complaint the inquiry was conducted and shri J.P. Gupta investigated upon the matter. This report is exh-p-105 by the prosecution. In the inquiry 6 persons namely Ramji Sirdar, Gokulprasad sharma, Ghanshyam Sharma, Hariprasad Tiwari, Dinesh Kumar Tiwari and Prakash chand Shrivastava were made held responsible for the unfair distribution of the pesticides. All the persons made accused in the report are the office bearers of the Co-operative society. On the basis of the report submitted by the officer -in charge dated 9/2/1983, F.I.R was lodged by the Police at Kawardha(Kabirdhaam) and the during the course of investigation the accused persons were arrested. Later challan was produced against the accused and the charges were framed against the accused persons. 3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judged of trial Court, the applicants preferred such appeals before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has affirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the said appeals. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, 4 and thus, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicants have already undergone about 22 days of jail sentence, and the fine amount has already been deposited by them. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and available records with utmost circumspection. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while affirming the conviction of the applicants for offence under Sections 409, 467 and 465 of the IPC. Thus, the convictions are affirmed. 8. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicants are facing criminal trial since 1987 and thereafter more than 39 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicants at present and further 5 considering that the applicants have already undergone about 22 days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicants in jail as they have already suffered 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 RI for 2 years under Sections 409 and 467 of the IPC and RI for 1 year under Section 465 of the IPC, to the period already undergone by the applicants i.e. about 22 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by each of the applicants under Sections 409, 467 and 465 of the IPC, in addition to the fine amount which has already been deposited by the applicants, within a period of 02 months from today before the trial Court concerned and the same shall be paid to the Government School for Visually and Hearing Impaired, Kanker, District – Kanker (C.G.), failing which they shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District – Kabirdham (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. 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 Rajshekhar