Naresh Masat vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3853 Jhar

                                  1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 17 of 2004
1. Naresh Masat
2. Arbind Masat
3. Birendra Masat                                  ..... Petitioners
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand                        ..... Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners    : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Mahua Palit, APP
                             --------
08/ 21.09.2022         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. From perusal of service report, it appears that the

petitioner No.1-Naresh Masat has died; as such this case is

dismissed as abated against the petitioner No.1.

3. The instant criminal revision application is directed

against the judgment dated 08.05.2003, passed by learned 3rd

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, whereby the Cr.

Appeal No. 18 of 1994, preferred by the petitioners has been

dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 22.01.1994, in G.R. No. 518 of 1990, corresponding to T.R.

No. 409 of 1994, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

whereby the petitioners were found guilty for the offence

punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

however, instead of any sentence directed to be released them after

execution of bond for keeping peace for 6 months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 341/

323/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to be released

after execution of Probation Bond of Rs.2,000/- under Section 4

sub Section 1 of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel

further submits that the period of Probation has expired; as such

he does not want to press this case on merit.

5. Ms. Mahua Palit, learned APP submits that there was

no sentence in this case and the petitioners were directed to be

released after execution of probation bond and since the matter is

of 1994 when the petitioners were directed to file probation bond

and since 28 years have elapsed as such nothing remains to be

adjudicated in this case and the matter is now infructuous.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned

counsel for the parties without going into merits of this case since

the period of bond is now over and no adverse report has been

shown by the State as such the instant application stands disposed

of as infructuous.

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/