Sukhdev Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 281 Chatt

                                                   1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Revision No.453 of 2011

Sukhdev Ram, S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Age 43 years, Profession Laborer, R/o
Village Budar, Thana Patna, Tahsil Baikuntpur, District Korea (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Korea (C.G.)
                                                            ---- Non-applicant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant:           Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate.
For State:               Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

13/01/2023

1. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated

25-4-2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Manendragarh at Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya in Criminal Appeal

No.63/2011 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has

confirmed the judgment dated 28-3-2011 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Baikunthpur in Criminal Case No.8/2011 convicting the

applicant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,

472, 473 & 417 of the IPC and also confirmed the sentences awarded.

2. Pursuant to the bailable warrant issued against the applicant, the

applicant is present in the Court.

3. Mr. Alok Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,

submits that both the Courts below have committed grave legal error

in convicting the applicant for the aforesaid offences and further erred

in sentencing him and further sentenced the applicant. The applicant

was arrested on 14-6-2008 and he was ultimately granted bail by this

Court on 14-10-2011, as such, he has suffered 3 years 4 months of

sentence, therefore, the revision be disposed of by sentencing him to

the period already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, supports

the impugned judgments and submits that the revision deserves to be

dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant forged a letter of

the District & Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur and issued to the

complainant in the name of Sonmati for the post of Peon bearing seal

of the District Court and he has also gave forged appointment orders

to Lallaram, Rajmohan, Shivnarayan Kurre, Kaleshwari, Purnima and

Premsagar. After due investigation, he was charge-sheeted for the

aforesaid offences and he was convicted by the impugned judgment

holding that he is author of the crime and obtained ₹ 26,000/- by

giving forged appointment letters. In appeal, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence was confirmed.

7. After going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for

the parties, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts below

have rightly convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offences which is

neither persevere nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm that

finding.

8. Now, the question of sentence comes in.

9. The applicant has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years & pay

a fine of ₹ 1,000/- under Section 467 of the IPC; RI for two years &

pay a fine of ₹ 500/- on each count under Sections 468, 472 & 473 of

the IPC; and RI for 3 months (seven times) under Section 417 of the

IPC for cheating Sonmati, Rajmohan, Kaleshwari, Premsagar,

Shivnarayan, Lallaram & Purnima. All the sentences were directed to

run concurrently. The applicant remained in jail from 14-6-2008 till the

suspension of sentences and grant of bail by this Court on 14-11-

2011. As such, he remained in jail for more than three years and the

maximum sentence awarded to him is five years RI. In the considered

opinion of this Court, ends of justice would serve if the period already

undergone by him i.e. 3 years 4 months is awarded to him. In the

meanwhile, he has suffered a great agony and at the time of offence,

he was aged about 43 years.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material

available on record, the applicant is hereby sentenced to the period

already undergone by him. In that view of the matter, the criminal

revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma