Partly allowed

Masihcharan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Nov 2024CRR/418/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 451 and 380 IPC for forcibly taking PDS stock from a fair price shop. The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the pendency of over sixteen years, absence of criminal antecedents and the applicant's advanced age.

What the court decided

AI extract

Masihcharan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:44261

NAFR

Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2024.11.14 16:53:19 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 418 of 2012

¶7

Masihcharan S/o Filmon Xalxo, aged about 50 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Bansbahar, P.S. Kansabel at Present Assistant Development Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kansabel Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, Police Station Kansabel, Jashpur , Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board

¶13

13.11.2024

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, whereby the learned Appellate Court, while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bagicha, District – Jashpur in Criminal Case No.925/2008 dated 14.12.2011, has dismissed the appeal and convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:-

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

Conviction Sentence
U/s 451 of the IPC R.I. for six months and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days
U/s 380 of the IPC R.I. for six months and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of fine, additional
R.I. for 15 days
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.03.2008 when one Public Distribution System (PDS) Fair Price Shop was being run by ward Panch Sumer Sai under the instruction of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat, Bagicha, the present applicant came there around 4:00 PM on his jeep bearing No. CG14/0525 and asked for sugar. At the denial, the applicant forcefully took one bag ‘ Usna’ rice, one bag ‘ Amrit’ Salt and five liter kerosene oil in one white coloured Jericane total valuing Rs.625/- and after keeping the said articles in jeep, he ran away. Thereafter, on 09.03.2008 one Santosh Kumar Chauhan (PW-1) lodged written report at Police Chowki Dokda and FIR was registered on 10.03.2006 at Police Station Kansabel.

¶19

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶20

Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Bagicha, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.06.2012, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence as made in

¶21

3 / 4

¶22

paragraph 1. Hence, this revision.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of September, 2008, applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since September, 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years and at present he is aged about 63 years. Further, the applicant was in jail from 07.03.2008 to 19.03.2008 and from 21.06.2012 to 24.07.2012, and thus he incarcerated the jail sentence for about 45 days and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant.

¶24

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment.

¶25

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

¶26

Considering the evidence of the complainant Santosh Kumar Chauhan (PW-1), which was supported by the evidence of Sumer Sai (PW-2), Sunil Ekka (PW-3) and Sandram Bada (PW-4), and further considering the material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant. As such, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶27

As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the facts that applicant was in jail for a period of about 45 days and he is facing the lis since September, 2008, i.e. for more than 16 years and there is no criminal antecedent against him and, further, at present he is aged

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

about 63 years, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the Appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period (45 days) already undergone by him, further with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

¶30

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section are 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 remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge

¶33

Prakash

Masihcharan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Masihcharan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gourishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Awadholiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagat Ram Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajwade Vs Kuldeep Singh Chouhan

Smt. Sarla Agrawal Vs Mahadev Transport Service Bilaspur

Dr. Vitthal Kumar Agrawal Vs Mahadev Transport Service Bilaspur