Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Dulari Ram Kaushik on 17 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.824 of 2022
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
Dulari Ram Kaushik S/o Madhulal Kaushik Aged About 72 Years
R/o Civil Lines, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant - Ms. Priyambada Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
S.B.:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
17-08-2022
1.
Heard on admission.
2. The State has filed instant Criminal Revision against the judgment
passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in
Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2018, whereby the conviction of the non-
applicant has been maintained under Section 467, 468, 471, 409
and 420 of I.P.C., in these offences, the non-applicant was
convicted for 04 years, 04 years, 02 years, 02 years and 02 years
respectively and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on each count and in default
of fine, further R.I. for 03 months on each count. The allegations
against the non-applicant is that the non-applicant at the relevant
time was posted on the post of Block Education Officer and he
withdrew the amount from G.P.F. from accounts of many teachers
on various dates, by forging documents. The matter was reported
by one Vijay Lal Paikra, Assistant Teacher of the Primary School,
Kabardha and consequently F.I.R. was registered against non-
applicant. The prosecution examined witnesses in support of the
case and exhibited documents. The non-applicant pleaded non-
guilty and abjured the charges. The statement of non-applicant
was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after appreciation
of evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the non-
applicant for offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471,
409 and 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 04
years, 04 years, 02 years, 02 years and 02 years respectively and
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on each account and in default of fine, further
R.I. for 03 months on each count.
3. The non-applicant challenged the judgment and conviction and
sentences recorded by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case
No.1181/2014 dated 29.12.2017 before the learned Sessions
Court and learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated
28.08.2021, affirmed the conviction of the non-applicant for all
offences but modified the sentence part. The learned lower
appellate Court, taking into consideration, the age of the non-
applicant, which is 75 years and also looking to the various
ailments and the period of detention, which was 515 days,
modified the substantive jail sentence from maximum 04 years to
515 days. The learned lower appellate court affirmed the sentence
of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- which was already deposited by the non-
applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the offences as
mentioned hereinabove were proved by the prosecution by
clinching oral evidence and documents. The learned lower
appellate Court has committed illegality in modifying the sentence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
record.
6. Learned lower appellate Court, considering the age of the non-
applicant, which is about 75 years and the period for which the
non-applicant remained in judicial custody, which is about 515
days and further considering the aspect that from 2003 on each
and every date of hearing, non-applicant marked his appearance
before the Courts below, while maintaining the fine part, modified
the sentence from 04 years to 515 days.
7. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the
reasoning and findings recorded by the lower appellate Court.
8. Consequently, this Criminal Revision is dismissed at the motion
stage itself.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Monika Judge
