Bhuvneshwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

This revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25/08/2005

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 09/2002 by 7 th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg, whereby, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge

has affirmed the judgment dated 18/12/2001 passed in Criminal Case No. 1157/1991 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh

convicting and sentencing the accused/Applicant as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 of the 1 year R.I. & fine of Rs. 200 with IPC default stipulation.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the month of July 1990, the Applicant had taken admission in Class-12 at National Higher Secondary

School, Camp-2, Bhilai. It is alleged that he produced forged documents and mark-sheet for the said admission. When, the Principal of the said school

doubted the school transfer certificate of the applicant, he inquired about the same from the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Temri, who in

turn sent a written information stating therein that the said transfer certificate has not been issued by their School and the said transfer certificate does

not bear his signature. Thereafter, a written report (Ex-P.1) was lodged by the Principal, National Higher Secondary School, Bhilai in Police Station-

Chhawni on 17/11/1990, based on which, First Information Report (Ex-P.2) was registered against the accused/Applicant. After investigation, a

charge-sheet under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC was filed against the accused/Applicant. Charges were framed under Sections 420, 467, and

468 of the India Penal Code.

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the Applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegation made against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been

examined in defence of the Applicant.

After trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Applicant and the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentenced as

mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. Hence, this revision.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that he does not press this revision on merit and confines his argument to the sentence part

only. He further submits that out of the total jail sentence of 1 year, the Applicant has already undergone about 1 month. At the time of incident, he

was a student and aged about 17-18 years, the incident took place in the year 1990 and he is facing the lis since 1990 i.e. for about 27 years and he

has no criminal antecedent, therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that after 27 years of the incident, it would not be appropriate to sent back

the Applicant to jail, who has already undergone about 1 month out of total jail sentence of 1 year. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if,

while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Applicant, he is sentenced with the period already undergone by him and the fine imposed upon him is

enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The enhanced amount of fine shall be payable within three months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. In default of payment, the Applicant shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. If any amount has already been

deposited towards fine, the same shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed/enhanced today.

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

Records of the Courts below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.