Jharkhand High Court
Binay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 801 of 2006
1. Binay Kumar
2. Murli Manohar Thakur ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP
--------
04/ 07.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision application is directed
against the judgment dated 22.06.2006, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-I, Bokaro, whereby the Cr.
Appeal No. 04 of 2004, preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 20.12.2003 in G.R. No. 809 of 2000/ T.R. No. 517 of 2003,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro,
whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 1 ½ years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each
under Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act and to undergo simple
imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each under
Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to
further serve six months rigorous imprisonment each under both
sections and directed the sentences to run concurrently, has been
affirmed.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on the written report
of the informant Harla P.S. Case No.80 of 2000 has been registered
against the petitioners under Sections 25 (1-b) a/ 26/35 of the Arms
Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After
trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offences and they
were convicted and their appeal was also rejected by the learned
appellate court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his
argument on the question of sentence and submits that both the
petitioners remained in custody for more than one year and they
are now middle aged persons and during entire period of bail,
they never misused the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may
be modified.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment
and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the
Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the impugned judgments including the lower
courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revisional
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 by the learned appellate court is,
hereby sustained.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from
record that the incident is of the year 2000 and 21 years have
elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of
litigation for the last 21 years. Further, petitioners remained in
custody for more than one year and now they are middle aged
persons and during entire period of bail they never misused the
privilege of bail.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back
to prison.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld
by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the
petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already
undergone.
10. With the aforesaid observation and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands
disposed of.
11. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of
their bail bonds.
12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below.
13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
