Wasim Bari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2018 Wasim Bari S/o Safiullah, aged about 40 years R/o Village- Kulwash, O.P. Bhojpur, Present address Ward No. 13, Police Station- Ramanujganj DistrictBalrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). --- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District- BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. N.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 07/08/2018 1.

This revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 31/03/2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2017, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 25/07/2015 passed in Criminal Case No. 06/2017 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Balrampur convicting the accused/appellant under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation. 2.

As per prosecution story, complainant- Sadik Ansari lodged a written complaint at Police Station- Ramanujganj alleging that on 20/08/2014, the present applicant and the complainant made a deal with regard to

selling of the cattle to the applicant. On 21/08/2014, the complainant had given token amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the applicant and the applicant made a promise to give 24 cattle to him at Dudhbal Ghat, but he never showed up at the place which was decided between them. The complainant tried to contact with the applicant many times, but he never received the phone calls. On the basis of the said report, the police has registered FIR (Ex.P2) under Section 420 of IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 420 and 506 Part-II of IPC was submitted before the trial Court. After trial, the trial Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur acquitted the applicant from the charge framed under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC and convicted him under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced for to undergo for 2 years with fine of Rs.

50/- only with default stipulation. On appeal preferred against the said order, the appellate Court vide judgment dated 31/03/2018 has affirmed the conviction and sentenced him to the period already undergone by him and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation. Hence this revision. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits he does not want to press this appeal on merit of the case and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that initially the fine amount of Rs. 50/- was imposed upon the applicant, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by the Appellate Court. He further submits that the applicant has undergone about 9 months during trial, therefore, in these circumstances looking to his detention period, the enhanced amount may be reduced.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer made by

the counsel for the applicant.

5.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant has already remained in custody for about 9 months and he has no known criminal antecedent, I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the amount of fine is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The fine of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant before the trial Court within 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall be liable to undergo SI for 1 month. 7.

The revision is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8.

Records of the Courts below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul