Sewak Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 551 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Revision No.602 of 2009

Sewak Ram, S/o Grahan, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Barekel, Police
Station Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Non-applicant

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

For Applicant: Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant:Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

27/01/2023

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

7-12-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal

Appeal No.114/2009 by which the applicant's criminal appeal has

been partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and while

confirming conviction under Section 379 of the IPC, jail sentence has

been reduced to one year RI, however, fine sentence of ₹ 10,000/-

was maintained.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the finding recorded by

the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and the applicant sufficiently

remained in jail from 29-8-2009 to at least till 10-12-2009, therefore,

he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him, if ultimately

his conviction is upheld.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned

judgment and submits that the applicant had stolen tractor & trolley of

the complainant and as such, it is the case where conviction of the

applicant has to be interfered and therefore the revision deserves to

be dismissed.

4. 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.

5. The finding of the trial Court convicting the applicant under Section

379 of the IPC on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, is a

finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither

perverse nor contrary to the record and that has been considered by

the learned Sessions Judge by its impugned judgment. I do not find

any perversity in the said finding affirming the conviction. However,

considering the fact that one year rigorous imprisonment has been

awarded to the applicant and the applicant remained in jail from 29-8-

2009 to at least till 10-12-2009 i.e. more than three months, I hereby

award him the sentence of three months 12 days already undergone

by him. As such, affirming the conviction of the applicant under

Section 379 of the IPC, he is sentenced to the period already

undergone by him i.e. 3 months 12 days. However, the sentence of

fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

6. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-

above.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma