Partly allowed

Sudarshan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2023CRR/692/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a revision against an appellate conviction under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The court reduced the jail term to the period already undergone but enhanced the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000. The fine is payable within one month, or else the appellant faces one month of additional imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Jail sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 8,000 payable within one month; one month additional R.I. in default.

Sudarshan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No.692 of 2010

¶5

Sudarshan, S/o Mansingh Chouhan, aged about 42 years, Caste Chouhan, R/o Village Gadla (Chongribahar), Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State/Respondent : Shri Sameer Oraon, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

20/06/2023

¶14

This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 14/12/2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18/2010 by Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, arising out of judgment dated 17/08/2010 passed by the JMFC, Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.503/2009 whereby the Appellate Court has afrmed the conviction of the applicant for the ofence punishable under Section 34(1)(A) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay fne of Rs.5,000/with default stipulation.

¶15

According to the case of prosecution, on 24.11.2009 at about 16:30 PM, on the basis of information received from the informant, police

¶16

¶17

personnel searched and seized total 18 quarters of foreign liquor (every bottles are 180 ml.) from the possession of the applicant. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was fled before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the applicant for the ofence mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

¶18

Being aggrieved with the judgment of the trial Court, applicant preferred appeal before the Appellate Court but the conviction and sentence was also afrmed by the said Court. Hence, this revision has been preferred.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits and confnes his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and he has undergone jail sentence for about 9 days out of total jail sentence of 1 month imposed upon him by the Court below. He is facing the lis since the year 2010 and, thus, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶20

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶21

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

¶22

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the facts that out of total jail sentence of

¶23

¶24

one month, the applicant has already undergone about 9 days in jail, there is no criminal antecedent 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. Further, the fne amount to be paid by the applicant is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and the applicant is liable to pay the enhanced fne amount before the concerned Court within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. If any fne amount has been deposited earlier, the same shall be adjusted in the already deposited amount. In default of payment of enhanced fne amount, the applicant is liable to undergo additional R.I. for one month.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶28

Prakash

Sudarshan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Damani Vs State

Umesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meena Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Prasad Khetan Vs State