Chattisgarh High Court
Gasat Ram @ Gasat Sai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47743
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.09.18
11:59:04
+0530
CRR No. 517 of 2016
• Gasat Ram @ Gasat Sai, S/o Ranjeet Ram @ Ranjeet Singh, aged
about 50 Years (now 57 Years), R/o Village Dudungjore, Thana and
Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Civil and Revenue District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms.Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel
Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
17/09/2025
1.
The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
24.05.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal
No.02/2009, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 30.12.2008 passed in
Criminal Case No.208/2007 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, C.G, convicting the applicant under
Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for four months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.10.2006,
complainant/PW-1 - M.S. Painkra lodged a written report (Ex.P-3) at
Police Station, Pathalgaon alleging that the present applicant obtained
employment as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department by
producing a false caste certificate claiming to belong to the Scheduled
Tribe, whereas the applicant actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
On the basis of written report (Ex.P-3), FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered
against the applicant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, Jashpur, C.G. The applicant
abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, 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 24.05.2016 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. She further submits that at present, the age of the
applicant is approximately 70 years, he has remained in jail from
24.05.2016 to 09.06.2016 i.e. for 17 days, he has no criminal
antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2006, i.e. for almost 19 years.
She also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by
the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that
the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
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 complainant/PW-1 M.S. Painkara,
Senior Principal, Kotba; PW-2 Nityanand Bohidar, Clerk, Block
Education Office, Pathalgaon; PW-3 Madan Lal Lehre, Clerk, SDO
(Revenue) Office, Dharamjaigarh; PW-9 Hiralal Gopal, Clerk, Block
Education Office, Pathalgaon 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 and further taking into account that the present age of the
applicant is approximately 70 years, he has undergone 17 days, he is
facing the lis since 2006 i.e. for almost 19 years and he has no criminal
antecedents, 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 Section, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the Court of JMFC as well as the Appellate Court
is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him. However, the fine sentence is affirmed.
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 view of the provisions of Section 481 of
BNSS.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
