Conviction under IPC sections affirmed; Court modified sentence based on time served.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24-3-2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Criminal Appeal No.4/2011 by which the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 30-12-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha in Criminal Case No.386/2010 convicting the applicant herein for the offences punishable under S.420 read with S.34 and S.468 of the IPC and also confirmed the sentences awarded.

2. The applicant has been convicted for offences punishable under S.420 read with S.34 and S.468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month (four times) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively.

3. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that there is no legally admissible evidence against the applicant and conviction is based on no evidence, even if conviction is upheld, the applicant was in jail for 1 year 8 months, therefore, he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgments and submits that the applicant has rightly been convicted and sentenced under S.420 read with S.34 and S.468 of the IPC and as such, no case for interference is made out and therefore the revision deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein - above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The trial Court in its judgment dated 30-12-2010 has clearly recorded a finding that the applicant was running a technical institute named as Satya Devi Mahavidyalaya Shiksha Avam Computer Training Institute, Sendri, Bilaspur with branches at Kawardha, Pandariya and Pipariya and without studying 10th and 12th Classes, he used to provide marks sheets of Higher Board of Secondary Education to the students after taking Rs. 8,500/-9,000/- from them which is offence under S.420 of the IPC. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the applicant and awarded sentences in the aforesaid manner which has been confirmed in appeal by the learned appellate Court. Such a finding is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm that finding.

7. Now, the question of sentence comes in.

8.The applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month (four times) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The applicant remained in jail for one year eight months and the maximum sentence awarded to him is three years RI. In the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would serve if the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 8 months is awarded to him.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the applicant is hereby sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In that view of the matter, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein - above.
Petition Partly Allowed.