Order on Board

11/11/2024

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.01.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 149/2013 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, arising out of the judgment and conviction dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, (C.G.) passed in Criminal Case No. 29/2012, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 02 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 02 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 02 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 200/-,further, in default of payment of fine amount, 7-7 days imprisonment on each offence. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the revisioner was participating selection process of Indian Army conducted by the OfÏcers of Indian Army, at University Ground, Raipur. The present revisioner participated in medical checkup and as he was found fit a Run slip was issued to him after medical checkup. Further, on document verification the OfÏcer i.e. P.W. 1 found two certificate submitted by the present applicant revisioner for his cast proof. The OfÏcer found the two documents forged and on suspicion the matter was inquired and found that the document submitted for cast proof was forged. On complaint of P.W. 1 the police of police station Sraswati Nagar has registered crime no. 341/2011 for commission of offence committed under section U/s. 420, 467/471 and 468/471 of I.P.C. that the revisioner has been arrested and after investigation the accused has been convicted.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 05 months of jail sentence. He also submits that the fine amount has been deposited. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount.

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/

State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment . I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in afÏrming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 420, 467/471 and 468/471 of the IPC.

7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2013 and thereafter more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 05 months of jail sentence and there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 02 years under Sections 420, 467/471 and 468/471 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 05 months of jail sentence, however, the fine amount imposed u