Rajaram Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3907 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 65 of 2006
                             ---------

     Rajaram Mehta                         ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
     The State of Jharkhand.    .....      Opposite Party
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.

     For the State        : Mr. A.K.Dey, APP.
                             ---------

06/Dated: 23rd September, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 24.11.2005 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV at Garhwa, in Cr.

Appeal No. 104 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 24.08.2000 passed by learned

S.D.J.M, Garhwa, in G.R. Case No. 3 of 1997, whereby the

petitioner was convicted under sections 406 and 420 of the

IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years on each

count, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently,

has been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioners was

dismissed.

3. 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 1997 and about 25 years have

elapsed since then and the petitioner must have suffered the

mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that

the petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail and he is

not habitual offender, as such some leniency may be granted

by this Court and sentence may be modified to period already

undergone.

4. Learned Addl.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 1997 and 25 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 25 years. The petitioner remained in

custody for about 95 days and is middle aged person and

sending him back to prison at this stage will hamper the

entire family. 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

petitioner/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, 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/