!;l^@iiS^si{ laigiaiSS'ttaas ApDlicant Resoondent HIGH CCURT OKCHHATriS®ARHAT BLASPUR Criminal Revision No.425 of W : Benuraj S/o N.K.Somi'aj Aged about 33 ^^rea(s,S^oKsshltaiDist:3aiS!3r-(GjGj' Vereus State of ChhrtUsgarh Through Distrirt Magistrats Jagdalpur-^.Q^ (Revision undersection 397 read wtti SecUon 401 ofCr.P.C.) Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma,J. Present: '^ Mr. Prafull Bharat, counsel forthe applicant. Mr.Sandeep Yadav, Dy.Govt.Advocate fortheState. ORDERjOWy.l (Passed on 25m February, 2310) 1. By this revision petition, th®applicant has chattenged frie legality and proRrtety of the judgment dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Thirct Addidonai Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.41/08, affirming the judgmert of conviction and order ofsentence dsrted 4S30fS ^isged by the Judteial Mtagistrate First Class, Kondagaon, in CWminal Gase No.683/99, whereby tearned Judrcial Magistrate First Class after hotding the appticant guilty for the offence punishabte under Seetion 420 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to paya fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to furfter undergo rigorous imprisonmerrtfbrflve montts. • 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revisi<m are that the present applicant is running S.T.D. P.C.O. On 23.6.99 by commitfng cheatmg the applicant issued a bill Ex.P/2 at ful! rate and received Rs112.25 from comptainant Mohd-Ahmad (PW-1). The cwnplainant lodged F.I.R Charge shee* was flled and after providing opportunity of hearing to ttie parties, the Judteial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon has convieted and ssntenced the applicant as aforementioned and vide judgment impugnad, the appeal was ateo dismissed. 3. ! have heard teamed counsel for the parties an<l perused the judgment impugned and records offte Courts below. 4. Learned counse! for the applicant submits that th®evjdence of S-D.O. (telephone) Pawan Chandrakar (PW-6) is material who has specilically deposed that he was not in a position to say ftiat ExsPC sakk alhsged bill - -2-— belonged to which P.0.0., therefore, in ttie ateence of any evidanc®to thefact that the applicant has issued a bill, conviction Is not sustainable uwder ftie law. 5. On the other hand, tearned Stete counsel supported the judgment impugned and submits that the present apptlcarrt has tesued a bill Ex.P/2 to the comptainant Mohd.Ahmad which has been duly proved by the evMenee of MohdAhmad. 6. The evidenee adduced on behaif of the prosecuUon, saizure cf blH Ex.P/2, evidence of S.D.O. (tetophone) PawanChandrakar ^W-6) reveal Uiat the bill in question has been issued only by the appticant and net by any other P.C.O's. The evidence also revesfls that the appHcant has eommitted cheattng with the complainant by recehring money, for which he was not enlUed < 7. Learned counset for the applicant subm'rts that tW-s is the ease. of year 1999 and the present applteant was In custody since 14.2.2010 for 11 6ayS. The Court betow has also sentenced the applicant to pay a flne of Rs;5000/-. Learned counsel contended that instead ofRs.112.25, fte tine amount imposed by the Court beiow wou!d serve the purpose of criminal justtce. 8. On due consideration ofthe facts and cireumstencesflfthe case, especiallytte amount and fault i.e. Rs.112.25 and pendency of criminat case, lam of the view that sentenc®imposed upon the applicant te not in proporfonate to the offence committed and it requires reconsideratlon. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant under SecUon 420 of the Indian Penal Code is heroby nRiintained'. However, instead of rigorous imprisonment fcr oro yaar and fine of Rs.5000/-, he is sentenced to ths period already undergone anct to pay a fine of Rs.5WO/- The applicant be released, if not required in my othw case SdA T.P. Sha;-ma Judge