Radha Krishna Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4098 Jhar

                                 1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 422 of 2007
1. Radha Krishna Prasad
2. Shiv Shankar Prasad                             ..... Petitioners
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                        ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners    : Mr. D.K. Karmkar, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
                             --------
06/ 11.10.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 02.03.2007, passed by learned 2nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby the Cr. Appeal

No. 169 of 2006, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed

and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

02.06.2006 in G.R. No. 87 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 648

of 2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Jamshedpur, whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the

offence punishable under Sections 323/504 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and were further directed to release the

petitioners on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- for good conduct for a

period of one year.

3. Mr. D.K. Karmkar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners were convicted for the offence under

Sections 323/504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the learned trial court instead of sentencing them had

given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and therefore they

were directed to release on furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000/- for good

conduct for a period of one year.

He further submits that the said order of trial court was

affirmed by the appellate court vide its order dated 2 nd March, 2007

and the probation bond has already been filed on 28.05.2007.

Thereafter, enough time has lapsed and the period of one year has

already been fulfilled long ago, as such no useful purpose would be

served in deciding the case on merit.

4. Learned APP submits that since the period of one year

has lapsed, as such the instant application has become infructuous

and the same should be dismissed as infructuous.

5. In view of the aforesaid fact and the argument made by

learned counsel for the petitioners no useful purpose would be

served by deciding this case on merit as one year has elapsed long

ago.

6. Consequently, the instant application is disposed of

without interference in the impugned orders.

7. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

court below.

8. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Pramanik/