Chattisgarh High Court
Devsingh Chakrapani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.04.24
15:08:58
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 337 of 2011
• Devsingh Chakrapani, S/o Nakul Chakrapani, aged 48 Years, R/o
Village Parsoura, Thana-Bagbahra, Distt.-Mahasamund, C.G.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District
Raigarh, C.G.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
23/04/2025
1.
The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
31.05.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh,
C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.49/2005, whereby the learned Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated
30.03.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.357/1994 by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, C.G,
convicting the applicant under Sections 420 & 467 read with 471 of
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default
thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months for
each offence with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.11.1993 & 06.12.1993,
present applicant in collusion with another co-accused namely
Krishnachand Patel prepared forged and fabricated banker's cheque
bearing Nos.011728 & 011730 respectively and fraudulently withdrew
Rs.16,500/- and Rs.37,500/- from the Khadgaon Branch of Raigarh
Regional Gramin Bank. On written report (Ex.P-1) being lodged to the
above effect by the Branch Manager, Khadgaon (PW-1 Arun Kumar
Shrivastava), offence under Sections 420, 467, 471/34 have been
registered against the accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420,
467, 471 read with 34 IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dharamjaigarh. The accused persons abjured the charges and
pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, acquitted the co-accused- Krishnachand Patel of the
aforesaid charges, but convicted and sentenced the present applicant
as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was
challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate
Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2011 dismissed the appeal while
upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to
press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his
argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on
higher side. He further submits that the applicant remained in jail for
03 days i.e. from 20.06.2011 to 22.06.2011, he has no criminal
antecedents and he is facing the lis since November, 1993, i.e. about
31 years. He also submits that applicant is an old aged person of 80
years and now, he is a sick and bedridden patient, therefore, the jail
sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him. He also submits that the fine amount has
already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial
Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani vs State of
Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and
supports the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Arun Kumar Shrivastava /
complainant, PW-6 D.S. Patel, PW-7 Rohit Kumar Hota and the other
evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion
that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a
correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of
applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani (Supra) and also
considering the fact that the applicant is an old aged person of 80
years, he has undergone 03 days, he is facing the lis since November,
1993 i.e. about 31 years and there is no criminal antecedents against
him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while
upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence
awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Sections, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is
hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him. The fine sentence is affirmed and both the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
