Jharkhand High Court
Lovprit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.36 of 2021
With
I.A. No.2566 of 2021
With
I.A. No.2567 of 2021
Lovprit Singh
@ Lovepreet Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P
---------
The matter was taken up through Video
Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no
objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---------
th
05/Dated: 29 June, 2021
I.A. No.2566 of 2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 404
days in preferring the present revision application.
2. Learned A.P.P is present.
3. In view of the reasons assigned in the interlocutory
application, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is
made out, accordingly the delay is condoned.
4. I.A. No.2566 of 2021 stands allowed.
Cr. Revision No.36 of 2021
With
I.A. No.2567 of 2021
1. The instant revision has been preferred against the
judgment dated 17.09.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.244 of 2018 by the court of learned Sessions Judge, East
Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, affirming the judgment and order
of sentence dated 14.09.2018, whereby the petitioner has
been convicted of the offence under Sections 411/ 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, by the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No.268 of 2017 (T.R.
No.274 of 2018), arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No.18 of
2017. The petitioner has been convicted for possessing the
stolen 50 packets of SKF bearings and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay the fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand), and in default thereof, to suffer
simple imprisonment of six months for the said offence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his
prayer only for the sentencing part and it has been argued
that considering the nature of allegation and the period of
custody, sentence part may be modified and reduced to the
period already undergone by the petitioner. It has further
been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has remained in custody for more than nineteen
months out of the imposed sentence of two years. It has been
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the
enhanced amount of fine, if so imposed. On the above facts, it
has been submitted that the sentencing part may be reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
3. Learned A.P.P has no objection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. Considering the nature of allegation, period of custody
and age of the petitioner and the facts of the case, this Court
is of the view that in the interest of justice, the sentence as
imposed by the court below should be reduced to the period
already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of
sentence/ judgment dated 17.09.2019, passed by the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal
No.244 of 2018 is modified to the extent that it is reduced to
the period already undergone (i.e., nineteen months) by the
petitioner, with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit
the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) at
the time of his release in the court below.
5. The court below shall release the petitioner forthwith, if
his detention is not required in any other case, subject to
payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) in the court
below.
6. With the above modification of the sentence, the present
criminal revision and I.A. No.2567 of 2021 stand disposed off.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
