Chattisgarh High Court
Ishwar Singh Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 714 of 2021
Ishwar Sindh Sidar, S/o Manu Singh Sidar, aged about 43
years, R/o Village-Borda, Police Station Sakti, District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate, Durg,
District Durg (C.G.)
----Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Purunendra Khichariya, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
17.06.2022
1. Applicant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 420 of the IPC by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal
Case No. 21090/2010 vide judgment of conviction & order of
sentence dated 23.11.2019 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, with
default stipulation. In appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 283/2019
preferred by applicant/accused, the Second Additional Sessions
Judge Durg (C.G.) vide judgment dated 03.09.2021, upheld the
conviction under Section 420 IPC. However, while maintaining
fine sentence of Rs.3,000/- imposed upon the applicant, reduced
rigorous imprisonment for three year to rigorous imprisonment for
one year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2005
applicant has taken an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the
complainant in order to secure employment in the Food
Corporation of India for his son, but despite passing of two years,
the applicant could not provide job to the complainant's son. It is
alleged that on being demanded the aforesaid amount from the
applicant, he did not return the same to the complainant. Based
on above facts, present crime under Section 420 was registered
against the applicant. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the accused/applicant before Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Durg. Charge under Section 420 IPC was framed
and the same was explained to the applicant/accused, which he
denied and his plea was recorded.
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused/applicant, the
prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of
its case. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case,
pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Vide judgment dated 23.11.2019, learned trial Magistrate
has convicted the accused/applicant under Section 420 IPC and
sentenced him as mentioned above. In appeal, conviction was
upheld and sentence was modified by Second Additional
Sessions Judge Durg (C.G.) as mentioned in opening paragraph
of the order. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant
would submit that accused / applicant has already remained in
jail for the period from 24.09.2009 to 29.9.2009 & 3.9.2021 to
17.6.2022, whereas, the sentence which has been awarded to
him is of only one year rigorous imprisonment and incident had
taken place in the year 2005 and thereby more than 17 years
have rolled by since then, therefore, he is not pressing this
revision as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment
and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof
only. He further submits that as per impugned order, fine amount
imposed upon the applicant has already been deposited by him
and interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence
awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
6. To this proposition of counsel for the accused/applicant,
State Counsel has submitted his formal objection.
7. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that applicant has
served out the jail sentence for the period from from 24.09.2009
to 29.9.2009 & 3.9.2021 to 17.6.2022 and the offence, which has
been levelled against him, is not so heinous and considering the
submissions made by counsel for the applicant; this court is of
the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping him
in detention any further and interest of justice would be served if
he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
8. In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed.
Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the
accused/applicant is maintained, as also imposition of
punishment of fine, which has already been deposited by the
applicant, is also maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him
is reduced to the period already undergone (i.e. from 24.09.2009
to 29.9.2009 & 3.9.2021 to 17.6.2022) by him. Hence, he be set
free forthwith, if not required in any other case.
9. Registry is directed to send the information in this regard to
the concerned trial Court and Jail Authority forthwith.
10. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
Sd/-
(N.K.Chandravanshi)
Judge
