Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sagir Son Of Md. Kabir Resident ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 888 of 2013
Md. Sagir son of Md. Kabir resident of Rajab Ali Lane, P.O. &
P.S.- Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi ... ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
Through Video Conferencing
14/06.7.2021
1. Heard Mr. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. This criminal revision application is directed against the
order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal
No. 157/2010 which was preferred against the judgment
and order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 2905 of 2004
/ T.R. No. 208 of 2010 arising out of Lower Bazar P.S.
Case No. 174 of 2004 convicting the petitioner under
Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a
and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.
1,000/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act
and in default of the payment of the said fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10-10 days. The
period of detention undergone by the petitioner during
the trial was directed to be set off against the sentences of
imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
sole petitioner of the present case has expired on
15.06.2021 and he has received instruction from his wife
that she does not want to contest the present criminal
revision and she would deposit the fine amount before
the learned court below. Accordingly, no petition for
addition of party has been made. The learned counsel
submits that apparently the legal heirs are not interested
in pursuing the present case, although by the impugned
judgment, total fine of Rs. 2,000/- has been also imposed
against the deceased-petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has
submitted that an affidavit dated 01.07.2021 has been filed
in the present case bringing on record that the sole
petitioner has expired on 15.06.2021. He further submits
that that it is not in dispute that the sole petitioner has
expired, but the total fine amount of Rs.2,000/- is still to
be realized by the State from the property of the
deceased-petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that the sole petitioner of the present case was
convicted for offence under Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the
Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.
1,000/- for each of the offences. Considering the fact that
the petitioner has expired, his legal heirs were given
opportunity to represent the case, but they have chosen
not to contest the present case.
7. This Court finds that the learned courts below have
recorded concurrent findings after appreciating the
materials on record and no illegality or perversity, as
such, has been pointed out before this Court. On account
of the death of the sole petitioner, the present petition
abates only with respect to the substantive sentence of the
deceased-petitioner, but the fine amounts imposed by the
learned court below would still be realized in accordance
with law. Accordingly, the learned court below is
directed to take all necessary steps to realize the fine
amounts.
8. The present petition is hereby dismissed in the aforesaid
terms.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
11. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
