Revision against concurrent convictions for cheating and forgery in a fake job racket. The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the Section 420 IPC sentence to the 17 months and 20 days already undergone, considering the applicant's minor role, absence of criminal antecedents and 14-year pendency, and directed all sentences to run concurrently.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 5
Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: 2024.11.05 11:09:47 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 26 of 2012
versus
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
04/11/2024
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 468 of Indian | Simple Imprisonment for one year and |
| Penal Code (for short 'IPC') | fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months |
| Under Section 471 of IPC | Simple Imprisonment for oneyear and |
2 / 5
| fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month |
|
|---|---|
| Under Section 420 of IPC | Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for four months |
| Under Section 12([k)(2) of IPC |
Simple Imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month |
(All the sentences were directed to run separately)
3 / 5
4 / 5
IPC, the sentences awarded to the applicant ought to have been run concurrently. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentences awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him while directing to run the sentences concurrently.
5 / 5
would be justifiable if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to 17 months and 20 days S.I. from 2 years S.I. for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, which he has already undergone . However, the conviction of applicant under Sections 468, 471 and 120( [ k)2 of IPC and sentence thereunder imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court are hereby maintained being well-merited. This apart, looking to the sequence of Sections under which the applicant was convicted and the provisions contained in Section 31 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 71 of IPC, the sentences awarded to the applicant in all the offences are directed to run concurrently. The fine amount with default stipulations imposed for the aforesaid offences shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge
Akhilesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC for obtaining money on forged documents was sustainable.
Whether the sentence could be reduced to period already undergone given the applicant's minor role, youth and prolonged pendency.
Whether sentences under different sections should run concurrently under Section 31 CrPC read with Section 71 IPC.
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Sandeep
State of Chhattisgarh
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
