Tulsi Ram Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Sameer Oraon, G.A., Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 25 . 08 .2023 Heard.

#1. Both these revisions have been preferred by the applicants under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

20.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Distrct: Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2011 whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 14.02.2011 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda in Criminal Case No. 61/2010, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

#2. By the impugned judgment, the applicants are convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 457 of IPC U/s 380 of IPC SI for 2 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one week to each applicants. SI for 1 year and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one week to each applicants. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently

#3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Bhupendra Singh @ Vikki lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) at Police Station: Nevra, that he works as Mechanical Contractor in Century Cement Factory, Baikunth and his office is at Mechanical Work Shop. He stated that he had withdrawn Rs. 13,55,000/- out of which he had disbursed the amount of Rs. 8,68,000/- to the workers. He kept the remaining amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in the almirah at the office of Cash Supervisor Uday Singh. The complainant also mentioned that he had prepared different bundles of notes and had mentioned the name and amount on the said bundle. On

07.04.2010 Uday Singh informed to the complainant Bhupendra Singh @ Vikki that someone has stolen the said amount by breaking the Almirah. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC were registered against the applicants.

#4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tilda, District: Raipur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

#5. Learned Court below (JMFC, Tilda), after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants under Section 457 of IPC and sentenced them RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced them RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2011, dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and altered the sentence part. Hence, this revision.

#6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the applicant Tulsi Ram Gautam has remained in jail from 10.04.2010 to 30.04.2010 and 15.03.2011 to 20.04.2011, applicant No.1 Deepnarayan Patel has remained in jail from 10.04.2010 to

07.05.2010 and 15.03.2011 to 20.04.2011 and applicant No. 2 Manoj Markam has remained in jail from 10.04.2010 to 29.04.2010 and 15.03.2011 to 20.04.2011, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e. for more than 12 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

#7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

#8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

#9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that they are facing the lis since 2010 and there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

#10. Consequently, both the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned sections is affirmed, however, applicant- Tulsi Ram Gautam, applicant No. 1 Deepnarayan Patel and applicant No. 2 Manoj Markam are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, i.e. 55 days SI for each offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The fine sentence is affirmed. Both the sentences are run concurrently.

#11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

#12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Saurabh Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal)