Niwaran Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1581 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 36 of 2004
                              ---------

      Niwaran Mandal                              ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
      The State of Jharkhand.             .....   Opposite Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Ms. J.S.Mazumdar. Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP

---------

04/Dated: 20th April, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Though the notice was issued on the last occasion,

however, Ms. J.S.Mazumdar, learned Advocate submits that

she will assist the court on the behalf of the petitioner.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against

the judgment dated 09.12.2003, passed by the learned 12th

Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.

149 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 29.09. 2000 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has

been convicted for the offence under Section 47 (a) of the

Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of 6 months for

the offence under Section 47 (a) of the Excise Act in

connection with C.E.Case No. 144 of 1998 has been affirmed

with a modification in the sentence to the effect that the

sentence of the petitioner was reduced from 6 months to 3

months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of

fine further simple imprisonment of 15 days.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.01.1998 at

around 11.00 O'clock a raid was conducted in the house of

the petitioner by the Excise Inspector and other personnels of

the Excise Department and during the raid 70 kg. Jawa

Mahua and 15 litres of illicit distilled liquor were seized from

the house of the petitioner. Thereafter a seizure list was

prepared in presence of 2 independent witnesses. It is further

alleged that at the time of alleged raid the petitioner was not

present in his house. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the

present case was instituted under Sections 47 (a) of the

Excise Act.

5. At the outset, Ms. J.Mazumdar, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual

offender. The petitioner has also undergone 67 days

imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As

such, she is confining her prayer only on the question of

sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him

back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the

entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of

fine.

6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and

submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no error

in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction cannot

be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of

fine.

7. After going through the impugned judgments including

the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere

with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment

of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld

with modification by the learned appellate court is, hereby,

sustained.

8. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent

from record that the incident is of the year 1998 and 23 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 23 years. The petitioner also remained

in custody for about 67 days and it is not stated that the

petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the

incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the

petitioner or any mental depravity.

9. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the

petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is,

hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone,

subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-.

11. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of 4 months from

today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest

of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

12. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

13. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts

below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge

of concerned police station.

15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/