Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 December, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.133 of 2010
Prakash Yadav, S/o Rajaram, aged about 47 years, R/o Deepak
Nager, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Durg, Distt. Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
09/12/2022
1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant against the
judgment dated 25/02/2010 passed by learned 12 th
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 306/04 arising out of judgment dated
16/09/2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Durg, in Criminal Case No.05/03 whereby the
Appellate Court has afrmed the conviction of the
applicant/accused for the ofence punishable under Sections
465/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the Appellate Court has reduced the sentences to
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fne to Rs.10 for each
of the ofences with default stipulations. (All sentences
were directed to run concurrently).
2. According to the case of prosecution, in a Sessions Case
No.05/01 pending before the Special Judge, Durg, on
13.11.2002 a reply was fled and one Parmeshwar had
impersonated himself as Lakhan Lal. It is alleged that the
present applicant identifed Parmeshwar as Lakhan Lal.
Thereafter, the matter was reported. On the basis of report
made by the complainant, ofence was registered against
the applicant and charge-sheet was fled against him and
other co-accused persons. The Trial Court convicted and
sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
judgment. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the
applicant before the Appellate Court and the said appeal
was dismissed. The Appellate Court afrmed the conviction
of the applicant, however, reduced the jail sentence as
mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this
revision has been fled.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that he does not want to press this revision on
merits and confnes his argument to the sentence part only.
He further submits that the Trial Court has sentenced the
applicant for rigorous imprisonment for three years,
however, the Appellate Court has reduced the sentence to
two years and out of two years, the applicant has already
undergone jail sentence for about 1 year in this case. He
further submits that applicant is a poor person, aged about
70 years. Applicant has no previous antecedents and he is
facing the lis since 2004 i.e. for about 18 years and the fne
amount imposed upon him has already been deposited.
Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision
and supported the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record available with utmost
circumspection.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering that the applicant has undergone jail
sentence of about one year out of two years imposed upon
him by the Appellate Court, he is facing the lis since 2004
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 awarded to him is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
7. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction
of the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the
judgment is afrmed and against the conviction he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fne
sentence for the above ofences are also afrmed.
8. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy
of this order forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
