Partly allowed¶29

Ajay @ Papu Rawat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2025CRR/283/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC 2025; Criminal Revision 283/2011; Ss.397/401 CrPC revision; conviction affirmed under Ss.420/467/468/471 IPC (cheating and forgery — forged government appointment order, Rs.50,000); sentence reduced to period already undergone (1 year 7 months) on grounds of long custody, 16-year pendency, age about 60, no antecedents, fine deposited; sentences concurrent; fine affirmed; bail bond in force six months under S.481 BNSS 2023; Kabirdham/Pandariya courts below.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed: conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (1 year and 7 months) with all sentences to run concurrently; fine sentence affirmed; bail bond to remain in force for six months under Section 481 BNSS, 2023. ¶29

Ajay @ Papu Rawat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, based on the evidence on record, is correct. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding; the conviction of the applicant is hereby affirmed.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the applicant remained in jail for more than 1 year and 7 months, has faced the lis since 2009 (over 16 years), is now aged about 60 years, has no criminal antecedent and has deposited the fine, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him back to jail; while upholding the conviction, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., 1 year and 7 months, with all sentences to run concurrently.

¶28

Key takeaways

The fine sentence imposed on the applicant is affirmed.ratio¶29
Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the order in view of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2011, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.), decided 09.12.2025 — Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against the judgment dated 17.02.2011 of the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2010 affirming the conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2010 passed by the JMFC, Pandariya, in Criminal Case No.775/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC (allegedly obtaining Rs.50,000 on assurance of a government job and issuing a forged appointment order). Counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction but contended the sentence was excessive, citing custody of over 1 year 7 months (06.09.2009 to 11.05.2011), pendency of the lis for over 16 years, the applicant's present age of about 60 years, absence of criminal antecedents, and deposit of the fine. The Court held the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts to be correct findings based on the record and affirmed the conviction. On sentence, it held that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the applicant back to jail and reduced the jail sentence to the period already undergone (1 year and 7 months), directing all sentences to run concurrently; the fine was affirmed, and the bail bond was directed to remain in force for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Revision partly allowed.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASHKUMAR KUMARDate:2025.12.09 17:15:28 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2011

¶6

Ajay @ Papu Rawat, S/o Hemnarayan Rawat, aged about 42 years, R/o Behind High Court, Tikrapara, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Kawardha, District Kawardha (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

09.12.2025

¶14

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2010 whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, in Criminal Case No.775/2009, convicting the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000 and R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs1,000/-, in

¶15

¶16

default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days, 1 month, 1 month and 1 month respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

¶17

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the applicant – Ajay @ Pappu Rawat along with one Shailesh Devangan went to the house of Kotwar Shatrughan Gandharva and received Rs.50,000/- on assurance that he would provide them government job and gave them forged appointment order. It is alleged that the applicant made forged signature and has cheated him. On the basis of the above background, the offence was registered against the applicant and, thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶18

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pandariya, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶19

4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant 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 17.02.2011 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

¶20

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for more than 1 year and 7 months i.e. from 06.09.2009 to 11.05.2011, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years, and at present, he is aged about 60

¶21

¶22

years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

¶24

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

¶25

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of Khem Singh (PW-01), B.S. Chauhan, ASI (PW-13), Ishwar Gandharwa (PW-02), Shatrughan (PW-03), Rupendra Singh Thakur (PW-04) supported with the other evidence 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 correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶26

9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for more than 1 year and 7 months, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for more than 16 years and at present he is aged about 60 years, further, he has no criminal antecedent and, the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is

¶27

¶28

reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year and 7 months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶29

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

¶30

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 contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶31

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶32

Prakash

Ajay @ Papu Rawat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay @ Papu Rawat 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

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Mathura Prasad Kashayap

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kishore Mahanand

Pramod Chandrakar Vs Bhanu Sahu

Geeta Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and another

Rajesh Dhody Vs v.k.mukharjee

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh