Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sharda Mishra And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 942 of 2012
Smt. Sharda Mishra and Anr. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
10/31.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-State.
Arguments of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner under
Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in
the eyes of law, as appropriate questions were not put to the
petitioner No.-2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the
material regarding basic ingredient for offence under Section
420/34 of IPC was not put to the accused . He submits that in
such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner No.-2 under
Section 420/34 of IPC is perverse and is fit to be set-aside. He
has also submitted that so far as petitioner No.-1 is concerned,
the learned appellate court had extended her the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, but had convicted the petitioner
No.-2 (son of petitioner No.-1). He also submits that the
petitioner No.-2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence
under Section 420/34 of IPC and he has remained in custody in
connection with the present case during the pendency of the
revision petition for a period from 05.04.2013 to 03.05.2013. The
learned counsel has also submitted that the FIR is dated
11.04.2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date
of the incident. He submits that on the date of conviction i.e.,
17.12.2011, the petitioner No.-2 was 38 years of age and
accordingly, the present age of the petitioner is about 48 years.
He submits that the petitioners do not have any previous
conviction. The learned counsel submits that considering the
facts and circumstances of this case and the sentence of
petitioner No.-1, some sympathetic view may be taken and
sentence be modified to the period already undergone by him
in custody.
4. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC
231 as well as the judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 221 on the
point of sentence.
5. The learned counsel submits that the total amount which
is alleged to have been taken by the petitioners from the
informant was an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-, which was sought
to be returned by issuing the cheques, but those cheques were
ultimately bounced as per the evidence on record.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that there are
concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, so
far as conviction of the petitioners under Section 420/34 of IPC
is concerned. He also submits that the arguments of the
petitioners, that proper questions were not put under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, has also been considered by the
learned appellate court and the plea has been rejected by a well-
reasoned judgment. The learned counsel has referred to the
Statement of the petitioner No.-2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to
submit that the material which had come during evidence in
order to constitute offence under Section 420/34 of IPC was
duly put to the petitioner.
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel
submits that it is for the court to pass appropriate order.
However, it is not in dispute that more than 20 years have
elapsed from the date of FIR.
8. Arguments are concluded.
9. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
