Ramesh Kumar Mersa vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 429 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Revision No.231 of 2011

Ramesh Kumar Mersa, S/o Anjordas Mersa, Aged about 28 years, R/o
Village Sendari, P.S. Koni, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                    ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Kawardha, Distt.
Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.)
                                                    ---- Non-applicant

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

For Applicant: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.

For State/non-applicant: Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

20/01/2023

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

24-3-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in

Criminal Appeal No.4/2011 by which the learned Sessions Judge has

confirmed the judgment dated 30-12-2010 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Kawardha in Criminal Case No.386/2010

convicting the applicant herein for the offences punishable under

Sections 420 read with Section 34 & 468 of the IPC and also

confirmed the sentences awarded.

2. The applicant has been convicted for offences punishable under

Sections 420 read with Section 34 & 468 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years & pay a fine of ₹ 500/-,

in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month (four times)

and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years & pay a fine of ₹

2,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month,

respectively.

3. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits

that there is no legally admissible evidence against the applicant and

conviction is based on no evidence, even if conviction is upheld, the

applicant was in jail for 1 year 8 months, therefore, he be sentenced to

the period already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel,

supports the impugned judgments and submits that the applicant has

rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 420 read with

Section 34 & 468 of the IPC and as such, no case for interference is

made out and therefore 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. The trial Court in its judgment dated 30-12-2010 has clearly recorded

a finding that the applicant was running a technical institute named as

Satya Devi Mahavidyalaya Shiksha Avam Computer Training Institute,

Sendri, Bilaspur with branches at Kawardha, Pandariya & Pipariya

and without studying 10th & 12th Classes, he used to provide marks

sheets of Higher Board of Secondary Education to the students after

taking ₹ 8,500/--9,000/- from them which is offence under Section 420

of the IPC. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on

record, the trial Court has convicted the applicant and awarded

sentences in the aforesaid manner which has been confirmed in

appeal by the learned appellate Court. Such a finding is a finding of

fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor

contrary to the record and I hereby affirm that finding.

7. Now, the question of sentence comes in.

8. The applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for two years & fine of ₹ 500/-, in default, additional rigorous

imprisonment for one month (four times) and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three years & fine of ₹ 2,000/-, in default, additional

rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed

to run concurrently. The applicant remained in jail for one year eight

months and the maximum sentence awarded to him is three years RI.

In the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would serve if

the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 8 months is awarded

to him.

9. 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