Partly allowed

Jagat Ram Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024CRR/106/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction of an applicant for criminal breach of trust involving misappropriation of destitute pension funds. It modified the sentence, retaining the imprisonment term already undergone while enhancing the fine amount to reflect the misappropriated sum.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence modified to period already undergone with enhanced fine of Rs. 11,700/- under Section 409 IPC.

Jagat Ram Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

Digitally signed by 2024:CGHC:43801 ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2024.11.12 NAFR 18:07:45 +0530

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 106 of 2009

¶5

Jagat Ram Sidar, S/o Shri Manglu Sidar, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, resident of village – Bisalpur, Thana and Tah. Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Palash Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Arvind Dubey, G.A. for the State.

¶9

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

11/11/2024

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2005, whereby the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed while affirming the judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed in criminal case No.831/1997 by the JMFC, Sarangarh, convicting the applicant herein under Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC and sentencing him to SI for one year with fine of Rs.50/- and ind default, additional SI for 3 months on each count.

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is Sarpanch of village Sahaspur. On 04.10.1997, a report was lodged by one Shyamsunder Dewangan (P.W.1) to the effect that he was informed by P.W.8 Shishupal Sahu that the applicant had withdrawn the destitute pension of the month of June – July, 1997, but it was not distributed as he had misappropriated the funds worth Rs.11,700/- by creating forged documents and thereby committed criminal breach of trust. Based

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

on report, F.I.R. was registered against the present applicant. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Police and the documents have been seized. The relevant documents, seized by the Police, have been examined by the hand-writing expert.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh C.G. The applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶18

The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as shown in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.01.2009 had dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment dated 19.07.2005 as passed by the JMFC, Sarangarh as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on merit and confines the argument only on the sentence part. It is also argued by counsel for the applicant that at the time of incident, the applicant was aged about 40 years and now he is aged about 68 years and in this case, the applicant has already remained in jail from 03.12.1997 to 09.12.1997 and thereafter from 31.01.2009 till 11.02.2009, i.e. 19 days. He has no criminal antecedents and he is facing lis since 1997 i.e. more than 27 years. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him while enhancing the fine amount. He further submits that the fine sentence has already been deposited by him in the concerned Court. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record available with utmost circumspection.

¶21

So far as conviction of the applicant is concerned, the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, after considering the statements of P.W.1 Shyamsunder Dewangan, P.W.2 R.R.Bhagat, P.W.3 Shishupal P.W.4 Sadhuram, P.W.5 Parvati and other statements of prosecution witnesses, whose destitute pension had been misused by the present applicant and other material documents available on record, have rightly come to the conclusion that it is the present applicant, who had committed criminal breach of trust by siphoning off the funds of destitute pension. The said finding of conviction by trial Court as well as Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to record and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.

¶22

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the incident is of the year 1997, at that time, the

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

applicant was 40 years of age and at present, he is about 68 years; he has no criminal antecedents; further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of 19 days; there is nothing on record to show that he misused the liberty while he was on bail during pendency of appeal and present revision; in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail at this stage and rather it would be justifiable if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court is enhanced to Rs.11,700/- under Section 409 IPC while maintaining the fine amount under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. It is made clear that if the enhanced fine amount of Rs.11,700/- is not deposited by the applicant within 2 months from today, then he will serve additional sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment.

¶25

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 by Appellate Court is hereby modified as above and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with a direction to run sentences concurrently.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶30

Anjani

Jagat Ram Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Ram Sidar 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

Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Hari Singh Rajpoot

Kamlesh Sahu Vs Rakesh Sahu

Smt. Meenabai Vs Omprakash

Ramniwas and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gourishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Awadholiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh