Sentence reduced to period undergone citing prolonged litigation and absence of criminal antecedents.

On April 15, 2014, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tenganabarpara filed a written report alleging that the applicants—Lileshwarnath Yogi (Rozgar Sahayak) and Madhusudan Netam (Panchayat Secretary)—attempted to withdraw funds from the Panchayat’s bank account using a forged signature on a cheque

Although joint signatures were required, the Sarpanch had not signed the document; the bank staff alerted the Sarpanch, who discovered the forgery

Following a trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Balod, convicted both applicants on February 11, 2016, under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 420/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI)

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence on June 21, 2016

The applicants subsequently filed these revisions challenging the appellate order.

1. Whether the conviction of the applicants under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 420/34 of the IPC was legally sustainable based on the evidence on record

2. Whether the sentence of three years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone given the circumstances of the case

Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 420/34 (cheating and common intention) of the Indian Penal Code

revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the continuation of bail bonds

The Court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to interfere with the findings of the lower courts based on the testimonies of the complainant (P.W. 2) and bank officials (P.W. 1, 4, and 11) which established the forgery and attempted unauthorized withdrawal

Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that the applicants did not contest the conviction but sought leniency

The Court observed that the applicants had been facing legal proceedings for over 11 years (since 2014), had no prior criminal antecedents, and had already served 201 and 213 days of imprisonment, respectively

Additionally, the Court noted that no actual monetary benefit was realized from the offense

Weighing these factors, the Court determined that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already served while keeping the fine amounts intact

The fine of Rs. 500 per count and default sentences remained unchanged

The Court directed that the sentences would run concurrently and ordered the bail bonds to remain in force for six months as per Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023