Kriparam Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.06.23
17:11:32
+0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:26478

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 1101 of 2016

¶7

Kriparam Sahu (wrongly mentioned in the Order Sheet as Kriparam Sahu Sahu), S/o Bhikhamram Sahu, aged about 51 Years, R/o Nagar Panchayat, Ward No. 04, Police Station Magarlod, Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

...Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicant	: Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For State/Non-applicant	: Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

20/06/2025

¶15

The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.75/2014, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.1185/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G., convicting the applicant under Section 36(F)(2) of C.G. Excise Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Act, 1915')

¶16

2

¶17

and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for ten days.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.10.2012, PW-4 Kirtan Chandrakar, who was posted at Police Station Magarlod, received a telephonic information that present applicant, after consuming liquor, is abusing people and creating a nuisance near the bus stand at Magarlod. After reaching the spot, he found the applicant in an intoxicated condition, abusing the public and creating a nuisance. Thereafter, applicant was taken into custody and an offence under Section 36(F)(2) of the Act, 1915 was registered against the applicant.

¶19

After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 36(F)(2) of the Act, 1915 was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶20

The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2016 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 07 days i.e. from 25.11.2016 to 01.12.2016, he has no criminal

¶22

3

¶23

antecedents and he is facing the lis since October, 2012, i.e. more than 12 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supports the impugned judgment.

¶25

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

¶26

Considering the statements of PW-1 Gendlal, PW-2 Sekhar Soni, PW-3 Dr. Uday Anand Dhruw and PW-4 Kirtan Chandrakar, Head Constable and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.

¶27

As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 07 days, he is facing the lis since October, 2012 i.e. more than 12 years 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.

¶28

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is

¶29

4

¶30

hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone

¶31

by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.

¶32

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.

¶33

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶34

Akhilesh

Kriparam Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kriparam Sahu 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

Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

Pardeshi Singh Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

Sanjay Babbar Vs Kunjlal Dadsena

Krishna Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Chandel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh