1 2026:CGHC:2606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1194 of 2019 Toran Sahu S/o Late Nandkishore Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRR No. 1165 of 2019 1 - Girvar Sahu S/o Keshoram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Police Station- Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Indra Kumar Sahu S/o Sitaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhathgaon, Police Station- Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant in CRR No.1194/2019 : Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Applicant in CRR No.1165/2019 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 15/01/2026 1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant in CRR No.1165/2019, respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the criminal revision, the appellant, namely Girvar Sahu, expired on 31.05.2025. He has also filed a copy of the death certificate of the said appellant, which is taken on record. Consequently, the present revision, to the extent it relates to the deceased appellant, stands infructuous in accordance with law. 2. These criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Nos.16/2015, 17/2015 and 18/2015, affirming the judgment dated 03.03.2015 passed by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 18:02:24 +0530 3 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1075/2013, whereby the learned JMFC has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 409/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (each), in default of the payment of fine to further undergo RI for 03 months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the relevant period from 01.11.2012 to 15.02.2013, the accused persons were working in different capacities at Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sarda, Sub-Center, Achholi. Accused Girvar Sahu was Head of Coolie, accused Indra Kumar Sahu was working as Fad In-Charge, and accused Toran Sahu (applicant) was engaged in issuance of receipts. On receipt of a complaint regarding misappropriation of paddy, the Collector, Bemetara ordered an enquiry, pursuant to which a joint inspection was conducted on 20.05.2013 by the Food Officer, Food Inspector, and Cooperative Extension Officer. During inspection, it was found that the Samiti had purchased a total of 52,842 quintals of paddy, out of which 14,559.05 quintals were sent to the rice mill and 36,986.40 quintals to the collection center, whereas 1,296.55 quintals of paddy, which ought to have been in stock as per computer records, were missing. It was alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, misappropriated the said quantity of paddy by preparing forged and fabricated documents, thereby committing offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of 4 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, and upon trial, the accused were convicted under Section 409/34 IPC, which conviction was later affirmed by the appellate court. Hence, the revisions. 4. Learned counsel for applicants jointly submit that they are not pressing these revisions as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining their argument to the quantum of sentence only. They further submit that the learned trial Court has sentenced the applicants for 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 409/34 of IPC, which was later affirmed by the appellate Court. Moreover, applicants, namely, Toran Sahu and Indra Kumar Sahu have already suffered jail sentence of about 1 year 6 months and 21 days and have already deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (each) imposed upon them by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants for the offence under Section 409/34 of IPC, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 5 7. Though learned counsel for applicants have not challenged conviction of applicants and confined their prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court, which was later affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 8. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicants herein and that being the position, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that applicants are guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 409/34 of IPC, which was later affirmed by the appellate Court. 9. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the applicants have already suffered jail sentence of about 1 year 6 months and 21 days and have already deposited fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- (each) imposed upon them by the trial Court, which was later affirmed by the appellate Court, further considering the agony of criminal trial faced by the applicants for several years, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice. As such, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the applicants are reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6 10. In the result, the revisions are partly allowed. Conviction of applicants under Section 409/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the applicants under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record of be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti