Mukesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed by the 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.13/2016 whereby the judgment dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.8927/2015 convicting the applicant under Sections 457 and 380/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous for 2 years and fine of Rs.200/- and R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days each

¶16

2

¶17

count, was affirmed while directing to sentences to run concurrently.

¶18

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, old office of Haribhoomi Press situated at Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur was lying locked for some time. Earlier, an incident of theft had already taken place in the office. On 08.07.2015, when one of the employee of Haribhoomi opened the lock of the office of old building, he informed that someone again committed theft of spare parts of printing press, ceiling fan, electric wire, copper wire of electric switch board etc. The total cost of theft articles was of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter, report was lodged to the concerned Police Station by Priyank Singh Parihar (PW-03), Audit Head of Haribhoomi Press. Based on the report, Crime No. 351/2015 was registered against unknown person. During investigation, the applicant along with other co-accused were interrogated and their memorandum statement was recorded. At the instance of the applicant, theft articles were seized. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted for alleged commission of offences under Section 457 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶19

3. 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 and co-accused persons in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.05.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the learned JMFC. Hence, this revision.

¶20

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not

¶21

3

¶22

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 applicant has remained in jail for about 1 year and 13 days i.e. from 16.07.2015 to 29.07.2016, he is facing the lis since 2015 i.e. for about 10 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court and submits that conviction of the co-accused person, namely, Raj @ Bade Sidar has also been maintained by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRR No.501/2016 vide order dated 28.03.2024.

¶24

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

¶25

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Priyank Singh Parihar (PW-03), Thaleshwar Prasad Soni (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

8. 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 about 1 year and 13 days, he is facing

¶27

4

¶28

the lis since 2015, i.e. for about 10 years and that, the fine amount has 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 reduced to the period already undergone by him. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶29

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

¶30

10. 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 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶31

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Prakash

Mukesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Chandel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tanka @ Mahaveer Nagvashi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Shah Vs Dwarika Prasad Shah

Dauram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jairam Uraon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nimai Barai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh