ORDER :

1. This Revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.6.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Appeal No.31/2021 which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akaltara in Criminal Case No.372/2019 whereby the applicant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year & to undergo SI for 3 years with fine of Rs.50/- each, respectively. By the impugned judgment, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal preferred by the applicant and modified the order of sentence whereby the fine amount imposed on the applicant by the learned JMFC was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.2,05,000/-. It was also made clear that in case of failure of payment of fine amount, the applicant shall undergo SI for one year. The applicant has challenged the same in this Revision.

2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant Jagdish Sahu has lodged a written complaint with the concerned Police Station alleging that the present applicant and co-accused Monika Alex (wife of the present applicant) had introduced themselves as Sales Tax Officer posted at Delhi and they had exchanged their telephone numbers with the complainant. The accused persons induced him for allotment of petrol pump and purchasing of land, and for the said purpose, they demanded certain amount on the pretext of registration etc. The complainant had given an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on various dates. It was alleged that even after receiving the aforesaid amount, neither the petrol pump was allotted to him nor any land was purchased in his name and thus, the accused persons had cheated him. On such allegations, an FIR (Ex.-P/19) was registered against the accused persons.

3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses, exhibited the documents (Ex.-P/1 to Ex.-P/39) as well as Article A-1 to A-28.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court convicted the accused persons for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo SI for 1 year & to undergo SI for 3 years with fine amount of Rs.50/-each, respectively. However, on Appeal preferred by the accused persons, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal and modified the fine amount, as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the complainant have already entered into compromise and the said petition was rejected by the Court below. Learned Appellate Court has already ordered to undergo substantive jail sentence and further ordered that the applicant shall also suffer jail sentence in the event of default in payment of fine amount, which has been enhanced by the appellate Court in aggregate for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC to tune of Rs.2,05,000/-, though the trial Court has ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50/- only. He would further submit that the appellate Court, according to Section 29 (2) of the CrPC, could not impose the fine exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month on the date of the offence. The appellate Court has also no power in view of second proviso to Section 386 of the CrPC to inflict greater punishment. Reliance is placed in the matter of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the Court below has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and finding of conviction under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC is based on evidence available on record. The finding recorded by the Court below is just and proper and does not call for any interference. However, he does not dispute the proposition that while exercising the appellate jurisdict