Bajrangi Lal Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Bajrangi Lal Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Correction of the typographical error in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 04.11.2025 in CRR No.1332/2025: undergone imprisonment to read as about six months (period already undergone) instead of “2 years and 45 days”; conviction under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 IPC maintained with jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine and default stipulation intact.

Issue for consideration

Whether the typographical error in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in CRR No.1332/2025 — which recorded undergone imprisonment as “2 years and 45 days” instead of the actual custody of about six months — ought to be corrected.

Court's answer

The typographical error in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in CRR No.1332/2025 is hereby corrected, and those paragraphs shall be read as set out in the corrected text reproduced in the judgment.

Ratio / Principle

As corrected, paragraph 14 records that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra), the maximum sentence of 05 years and the about six months of jail sentence already served, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing the applicant to the period already undergone.

Key takeaways

As corrected, paragraph 15 maintains the applicant's conviction under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 IPC but reduces the jail sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., about six months.ratio¶5
As corrected, paragraph 15 provides that the fine and its default stipulation imposed by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRMP under S.528 BNSS, 2023 for correction of a typographical error in the judgment dated 04.11.2025 in CRR No.1332/2025. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of that order had erroneously recorded undergone imprisonment as “2 years and 45 days”, whereas the applicant had in fact remained in custody for about six months during the trial and was thereafter enlarged on bail by the High Court. The Court corrected the error: corrected paragraph 14, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and noting the maximum sentence of 05 years with about six months already served, holds that the ends of justice would be served by sentencing the applicant to the period already undergone; corrected paragraph 15 maintains the conviction under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 IPC, reduces the jail sentence to the period already undergone (about six months), and keeps the fine and its default stipulation intact. Petition allowed; respondent raised no objection. Coram: Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decision dated 12.01.2026.

1

2026:CGHC:1771

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.30 17:53:17 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530

NAFR

CRMP No. 3655 of 2025

1 - Bajrangi Lal Prajapati S/o Dashrath Lal Prajapati Aged About 42 Years R/o Chindanpara, Chowki Kotmikala, P.S. Pendra, District : Gaurela-PendraMarwahi, Chhattisgarh.

… Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, P.S. Pendra, District : GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondent(s) : Mr. RCS Deo, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

12.01.2026

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking modification of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRR No.1332/2025.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid Criminal Revision was partly allowed by this Hon’ble Court however, due to a

2

typographical error in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, it has been recorded that the applicant has undergone imprisonment for a period of “2 years and 45 days”. It is clarified that the applicant had in fact remained in custody for about six months during the trial and was thereafter enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court.

Learned counsel for the Respondent has raised no objection to the correction sought.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the submissions advanced and the factual aspects of the case, the typographical error in paragraph 14 and 15 of the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in CRR No.1332/2025 is hereby corrected and shall be read as under:

“ 14. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 05 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about six months and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, that Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.”

“15. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. six months days.

3

However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the applicant

by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact.”

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

Arpan/-