The court modified the sentence for convicted applicants under IPC Section 420/34 to reflect time served and enhanced the fine, emphasizing justice and the applicants' circumstances.

Order on Board

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kawardha, in criminal appeal No. 47/2014, arising out of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, in criminal case No. 864/2011, whereby the applicants were convicted under Section 420/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 - 01 year with fine of Rs. 500 – 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 05 – 05 days each.

2. As per prosecution story, in 2009, the accused, Jagtu, proposed to the complainant that investing in ANX India Group would yield a 12% interest. Accordingly, on June 9, 2009, Raj Kumar Sahu and Dallu withdrew ₹9,000/- and ₹20,000/- respectively, from the bank and handed it over to the accused. The next day, the complainant gave the accused ₹100,000/- for investment. The complainant received an SMS password on June 10, 2009, but when no interest accrued, the accused assured them it would take 3-4 months. Further inquiries revealed the password was fake. The accused evaded the complainant's subsequent queries. On August 26, 2011, the complainant filed a report at Kawardha Police Station. Following investigation, charges were filed against the accused under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 05.08.2014, convicting the applicants under Section 420/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 - 01 year with fine of Rs. 500 – 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 05 – 05 days each.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 05.08.2014, the revisionists preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.04.2015 in criminal appeal No. 47/14.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists does not challenge their conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicants have already undergone near about 17 days of jail sentence each. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non- applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection.

8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicants for offences punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 - 01 year with fine of Rs. 500 – 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 05 – 05 days each. In an appeal preferred by the applicants/revisionists before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.04.2015 in criminal appeal No. 47/14. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the order passed by the learned trial Court.

9. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial commenced on 30.09.2011 which continued till 05.08.2014, and though the appeal also continued more than 07 months and this revision petition has been pendin