Jharkhand High Court
Hasib Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 988 of 2013
Hasib Ansari, S/o Late Fakhruddin Ansari, R/o Village -
Murma, P.O. and P.S. Mandar, District - Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
---
12/05.07.2021
1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Mohammad Asghar,
Advocate.
2. Heard Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of
the opposite party - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law on account of the fact that the requisite sanction
for prosecution has not been obtained in the present case and
the entire acts and omissions of the present petitioner was in
discharge of official duty. On this proposition, the learned
counsel has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court reported in 1997 Supreme (All) 1136 and
also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court
reported in 2018 Supreme (Gau.) 22. The learned counsel has
further submitted that otherwise also the impugned judgments
of conviction are not sustainable in view of the fact that the
Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which
has caused prejudice to the petitioner. For this, the learned
counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in a
case reported in 2016 Supreme (Jhk) 150 as well as the
judgment reported in 2018 4 JBCJ 29. The learned counsel
further submits that so far as the seizure witnesses are
concerned, they have not fully supported the prosecution case,
in as much as, they have stated that their signatures were taken
at the police station. However, he does not dispute the fact that
these seizure witnesses have not disputed their signatures on
the seizure list. The learned counsel submits that considering
the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the conviction as well as the
sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set-aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party-State while opposing the prayer has submitted that there
are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below
and the acts and omissions of the petitioner cannot be said in
discharge of official duty. He has also submitted that the
petitioner had collected money for issuance of NSC etc.
although the post office in which he was posted was not
authorized to do so. The learned counsel has also submitted
that although the Investigating Officer of the case has not been
examined, but the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the
same. He has also submitted that from perusal of the order-
sheet of the learned court below, it appears that appropriate
steps were taken for recording the evidence of Investigating
Officer, but ultimately in the year 2007, it was recorded that the
Investigating Officer has already retired and he ultimately did
not depose before the learned trial court. He has also submitted
that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences at a
revisional stage and considering the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction and there being no illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgments, no interference is called for by this Court.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions on
merit, it may also be taken into consideration that the case was
lodged as back as in the year 1998 and the petitioner has faced
the rigors of criminal case for more than 23 years and the
present age of the petitioner is approximately 50 years and he
does not have any criminal antecedent. He also submits that the
petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of about 6
months including custody during trial and at the stage of
revision. He has also submitted that there is no minimum
sentence, as such, prescribed under the provisions of sections
under which the petitioner has been convicted. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the totality
of the facts and circumstances of the case, some sympathetic
view may be taken and the sentence may be modified and some
fine amount may be imposed.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State submits
that so far as the modification of the sentence is concerned, he
does not have any serious objection and it is for the Court to
consider and pass appropriate order.
7. Arguments concluded.
8. Judgment is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
