Chattisgarh High Court
Devsingh Chakrapani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.04.24
15:08:58
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 337 of 2011
• Devsingh Chakrapani, S/o Nakul Chakrapani, aged 48 Years, R/o
Village Parsoura, Thana-Bagbahra, Distt.-Mahasamund, C.G.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District
Raigarh, C.G.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
23/04/2025
1.The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.49/2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 30.03.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.357/1994 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, C.G, convicting the applicant under Sections 420 & 467 read with 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months for 2 each offence with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.11.1993 & 06.12.1993, present applicant in collusion with another co-accused namely Krishnachand Patel prepared forged and fabricated banker's cheque bearing Nos.011728 & 011730 respectively and fraudulently withdrew Rs.16,500/- and Rs.37,500/- from the Khadgaon Branch of Raigarh Regional Gramin Bank. On written report (Ex.P-1) being lodged to the above effect by the Branch Manager, Khadgaon (PW-1 Arun Kumar Shrivastava), offence under Sections 420, 467, 471/34 have been registered against the accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 471 read with 34 IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh. The accused persons abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the co-accused- Krishnachand Patel of the aforesaid charges, but convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2011 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail for 03 days i.e. from 20.06.2011 to 22.06.2011, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since November, 1993, i.e. about 3 31 years. He also submits that applicant is an old aged person of 80 years and now, he is a sick and bedridden patient, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani vs State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Arun Kumar Shrivastava / complainant, PW-6 D.S. Patel, PW-7 Rohit Kumar Hota and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani (Supra) and also considering the fact that the applicant is an old aged person of 80 years, he has undergone 03 days, he is facing the lis since November, 1993 i.e. about 31 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence 4 awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh