Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 10561
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Raja Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRR/743/2014
Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate; Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
The court modified the sentence based on time served and the applicant's circumstances, enhancing the fine while confirming the conviction for theft.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 447, 379/34 - State Security Act - Section 26 - Criminal revision against conviction for theft and criminal trespass - Conviction under Section 447 IPC and Section 26 of the State Security Act quashed; conviction under Section 379/34 IPC confirmed - Sentence modified to reflect time already served and fine enhanced. (Paras 1, 4, 9)
(B) Sentencing - Consideration of time served and circumstances of the applicant - The court found that the applicant had already undergone approximately 02 months of imprisonment and thus modified the sentence to meet the ends of justice. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted for theft of copper cable and rod from Bhilai Steel Plant, with initial sentences imposed by the trial court. The appellate court quashed some convictions but upheld the theft conviction.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's decision was upheld, and the sentence was modified to reflect time served and an enhanced fine.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of the sentence given the time served and the nature of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the applicant's prior imprisonment and the lengthy duration of the trial justified a modification of the sentence.
Result: Criminal revision partly allowed.
Order on Board
1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Appeal No. 69/2010, arising out of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in criminal case No. 400/09, whereby the applicant was convicted under Sections 447 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month with fine of Rs. 100/- and RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in under Section 26 of the State Security Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further imprisonments for 10 days, 01 month and 01month (respectively).
2. The prosecution's case is that on 06.09.2007, a crime under Section 379/34 & 447 of the I.P.C. and Section 26 of the State Security Act was registered against the applicant and others alleging that from their possession 80 Kg. Copper Cable and 50 Kg. Rod were seized. On being investigation, the property was found of Bhilai Steel Plaint.
3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 26.07.2010, convicting the applicant under Sections 447 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month with fine of Rs. 100/- and RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in under Section 26 of the State Security Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further imprisonments for 10 days, 01 month and 01 month (respectively).
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 26.07.2010, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which was partly allowed and conviction under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of The State Security Act passed by the learned trial Court were quashed but the conviction order under Section 379/34 of the IPC has been confirmed.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant has already undergone near about 02 months of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him 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 applicant for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month with fine of Rs. 100/- and RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in under Section 26 of the State Security Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payments of fine further imprisonments for 10 days, 01 month and 01month (respectively). In an appeal preferred by the applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court which was partly allowed and conviction under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of The State Security Act passed by the learned trial Court were quashed but the conviction under Section 379 of the IPC has been confirmed. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the appellate
