Partly allowed¶30

Parmanand Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2025CRR/1079/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR No. 1079 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Radhakishan Agrawal, J., order dated 08.10.2025): Parmanand Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh; conviction under Section 420 IPC affirmed as correct appellate finding; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone (about 34 days); fine of Rs. 5,000/- affirmed; bail bond to remain in force six months under Section 481 BNSS; revision partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about 34 days); conviction under Section 420 IPC and the fine of Rs. 5,000/- affirmed; bail bond to remain in force for six months in view of Section 481 of B.N.S.S. ¶30

Parmanand Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.10.09
10:35:38
+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:50066

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 1079 of 2016

¶7

Parmanand Verma S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Surajpura, Police Station Lohara, Civil and Revenue District: Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate/ Station House Officer, Police Station: Khamahariya, District: Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶13

For State/Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, P.L.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶15

08.10.2025

¶16

1. This Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District: Bemetara, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.01.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District: Bemetara, in Criminal Case No. 443 of 2009. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused/applicant of all charges. However, in the appeal filed by the State, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused/applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six (06) months.

¶19

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.03.2010 at about 04:00 PM, the accused-applicant went to the house of the complainant, namely Santosh Patel, and cheated him by falsely representing that he was working for a company, namely Ultra Vista, which was establishing a mobile tower. By this representation, he dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the relevant documents for his field. Through the aforesaid inducement, the applicant-accused received Rs. 70,000/each, totaling Rs. 1,40,000/-, for establishing a tower in the fields of the complainant, Santosh Patel, and his father-in-law, Neturam. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered against the applicant.

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶22

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicant under Section 420 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by the State in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2016, allowed the appeal and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this Judgment. Hence, this revision.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 34 days i.e. from 08.11.2011 to 24.11.2011 and 18.11.2016 to 05.12.2016, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2011, i.e. for more than 14 years and at present, the age of the applicant is 55 years and he has already deposited the fine amount Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶25

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

¶26

8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-1 Santosh Patel,

¶27

Page 4 of 4

¶28

supported by PW-3 Ashwini Patel and PW-4 Neturam Sahu and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding.

¶29

9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone about 34 days, he is facing the lis since 2011 and there is no criminal antecedents 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.

¶30

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.

¶31

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of B.N.S.S.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶34

Saurabh

Parmanand Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Dulsai Nat

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Kumar

Karamchand Pashwan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Atwaro