Allowed

Nand Kumar Ahirwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2024CRR/286/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision in part. It affirmed the conviction under Sections 420/34 and 468/34 IPC but reduced the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant, considering his long incarceration and lack of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed. Jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone. Fine maintained.

Nand Kumar Ahirwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:48360

¶3

Digitally signed by ANJANI 2024:CGHC:48360 KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2024.12.10 17:51:42 NAFR +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 286 of 2011

¶6

Nand Kumar Ahirwar S/o Shri Punaram Ahirwar, aged about 30 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur at present Village Chadoni Para, P.S. Bodala, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt.-Kabirdham, C.G. ... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Durga Mehar appears on behalf of Shri Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate.

¶9

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

09/12/2024

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2011 by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while upholding judgment dated 30.12.2010 in Criminal Case No.386/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha convicting the applicant under Sections 420/34 and 468/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 - 2 years (four times) and fine of Rs.500/- (four times) and to undergo RI for 3 – 3 years and fine of Rs.2000/- - 2000/- and in default, to undergo further RI for 1 – 1 month (total 5 months) while making it clear to run the sentences concurrently.

¶14

2 / 3

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the co-accused Ramesh Kumar Mersa opened a Technical Institute named as Satya Devi Mahavidyalaya Shiksha Avam Computer Training Institute at Sendri Bilaspur with branches at Kawardha and Pipariya and the allegation against the present applicant is that in collusion with co-accused Ramesh Kumar Mersa, he used to provide mark sheets of Higher Board of Secondary Education to the students who are not studying 10^th & 12^th Class, after taking 8,500/-9,000/- from them. On the complaint of one Bhagvat (P.W.1), offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has been registered against the present applicant and during investigation, the present applicant along with co-accused person was apprehended.

¶16

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham. The applicant and other co-accused person abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶17

Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced him as shown in para 1.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant remained in jail from 25.08.2009 till10.05.2011 and thus, he incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 1 year 10 months and 15 days and there is no criminal antecedents and that he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for more than 15 years. She submits that fine amount has been deposited. Besides above, she also submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court, on the same set of evidence, vide order dated 20.01.2023 has allowed the Criminal Revision No.231/2011 filed by co-accused Ramesh Kumar Mersa and reduced the sentence already undergone by him. On these premises, she urged that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. A copy of order passed the above CriminalRevision is produced.

¶19

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting

¶20

3 / 3

¶21

the impugned judgment

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the evidence of complainant P.W.1 Bhagvat, Hemlata Markam (P.W.5) and Patrika Banjare (P.W.5) and other material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have concurrently arrived at a conclusion that the allegation against the present applicant in cheating the students including above witnesses and in taking money from them for their studies in the said Institute and in issuing receipts bearing with his signatures is proved and thus convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same. 9. As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicant remained in jail for a period of 1 year 10 months and 15 days and that he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e., for more than 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him and further considering that co-accused has been released from jail, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while directing to run sentences concurrently. However, fine sentence imposed upon the applicant is maintained. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶26

Anjani

Nand Kumar Ahirwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kumar Ahirwar 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

Smt. Kumari Bai Vs Anil Kumar

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Nohar Prasad Yadav

Smt. Lata Sahani Vs Santosh Sahu

Chatur Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shravan Kumar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dileep Kothari H U F Vs Deewan Singh