Giriwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2712 Jhar

                                        1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 446 of 2006
                                ---------

     Giriwar Yadav                                        ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                       .....    Opposite Party
                                ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr.Adv.

Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv.

     For the State          : Mr. Nikki Sinha, A.P.P
                                ---------

06/Dated: 18th July, 2022
            Heard learned counsel for the parties.

     2.     This     revision   application         is    directed   against   the

judgment dated 25.04.2006 passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Garhwa, in Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2002; whereby the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

29.11.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st

Class, Garhwa, in G.R. No. 396 of 1998, T.R. No. 324 of 2002;

whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence

under Section 25 (1-b)(a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced

to undergo R.I. for 1 ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and

also under Section 26 of the Arms Act to undergo R.I. for one

year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, of payment

of fine to further undergo S.I. for four months and directed

both the sentences to run concurrently, has, has been

affirmed.

3. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submits that this is a glaring example of ongoing

litigation where though the petitioners have complied part of

the order with regard to payment of fine, however, only for the

purpose of sentence, they have knocked the door of this

Court. He further submits that there is no criminal

antecedent, whatsoever apart from this case against this

petitioner. Further, on the question that the case is of the

year 1998, some leniency may be granted by this court so

that at this stage the petitioner may not be sent to jail after a

gap of 15 years as he was granted bail in November, 2006.

Further, the petitioner never misused the privilege of bail. He

further submits that the petitioner has also remained in

custody about 1 year.

4. Ms. Nikki Sinha, 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 1998 and 24 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 24 years. The petitioner is aged about

70 years and the petitioner also remained in custody for

about 364 days. Further, it is not stated that the petitioner

have 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

petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice

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

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

hereby, 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/-.

9. 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 DLSA, Garhwa, failing which he shall serve

rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court

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

of concerned police station.

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

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/