Chattisgarh High Court
Dakhal Sai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2023
CRR-549-2010
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 549 of 2010
Dakhal Sai, S/o Hridaya Sai, aged about 44 years, Caste
Vishavakarma, R/o Village Gopalpur, Police Station Surajpur, District
Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) at present Gadabuda, Police Station Podi,
District Koria (Chhattisgarh)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Koria (Chhattisgarh)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
20.01.2023
1.
Heard.
2. In this criminal revision filed under Section 394 read with Section
401 of CrPC the applicant is calling in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2010, passed by
the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manendragarh,
Baikunthpur, District Koria (appellate court) in Criminal Appeal
No.19/2007, whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the
order dated 31.01.2007, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Koria in Criminal Case No.1139/2000,
whereby the applicant herein has been convicted for offences under
Section 419 of IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
CRR-549-2010
one year and also under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.2,000 and, in default
of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for six
months.
3. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that there is no legally admissible evidence available on record to
upheld the conviction of the applicant for the offences mentioned herein
above. The learned trial Court has committed grave legal error in
convicting the applicant for the offence under Sections 419 & 420 of
IPC, as the same are not proved against the applicant beyond
reasonable doubt. In alternative, he submits that the applicant remained
in jail for a period of 05 months and 28 days and the maximum
sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial Court is of 02 years and,
therefore, if the conviction of the applicant is uphold, his sentence may
be reduced to the period he already undergone. Thus, the present
revision be allowed in full or in part.
4. Per-contra, Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel supported the
impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court is justified
in convicting the applicant for the offences under Section 419 & 420 of
IPC and learned appellate court has rightly affirmed the the conviction
of the applicant, as there is ample material available on record to
connect the applicant with the aforesaid offences. Thus, the present
revision deserves to be dismissed.
CRR-549-2010
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival
submissions made herein above and went through the record with
utmost circumspection.
6. The two Courts below have clearly recorded a finding that the
applicant is guilty of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC, as he
has obtained employment in place of his son by playing fraud and
forgery and the said finding is based on evidence available on record,
which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I hereby
affirm the said finding. However, considering the fact that the incident
took place on 21.03.2000 and at present applicant's aged would be
near 70 years, therefore, while confirming the conviction of the
applicant for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC, this Court
award him the sentence he has already undergone i.e. 05 months and
28 days.
7. Consequently, this revision is partly allowed to the extent
indicated herein above.
Sd/-dsd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
[email protected]
