C.K.Bhaskaran vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2022 Latest Caselaw 3188 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Revision No. 275 of 2006
     C.K.Bhaskaran                     ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
     Central Bureau of Investigation. ..... Opposite Party
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C to A.S.G.I

---------

08/Dated: 16th August, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed by learned Special

Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 115/1995; whereby

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

29.11.1995 passed by learned S.D.J.M-cum-Spl. Judicial

Magistrate, Ranchi in R.C.Case No. 6/74; whereby he has

been found guilty and sentenced for 2 years on each court

under Sections 120 (B), 420, 468 and 471 IPC, has been

affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.

3. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

fairly confines his argument on the question of sentence on

the ground that the instant case is of the year of 1974 and

about 48years have elapsed since then and the petitioner

must have suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation

and at present he is an old man. He further submits that

the petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail and he

is not a habitual offender, as such some leniency may be

granted by this Court.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and

as such, no interference is required.

5. 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 judgments of conviction passed by the

learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate

court is, hereby, sustained.

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is

apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1974

and 48 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 48 years. The

petitioner also remained in custody for about 111 days and

now the petitioner is 84 years old. Further, it is not stated

that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. In

addition, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the

part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that

no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the

appellant/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period

already undergone.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby

modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to

undergo for the period already undergone.

9. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond.

11. 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.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/