Jharkhand High Court
Kali Charan Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 928 of 2010
Kali Charan Sao ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate
: M/s. P. K. Singh, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
---
07/16.08.2023 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 05.08.2010, passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.VI, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal
No. 21/2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, F.T.C.VI, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence 19.01.2010, passed by Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned
R.J.M., Ranchi in connection with C7 Case No. 147 of 1995,
holding the petitioner guilty of offence under section 3(a) of the
R.P. (U.P.) Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two
years for the aforesaid offence.
On 14.05.1995, on the basis of confidential information
the complainant and other members of Railway Protection Force
raided the mud house of the petitioner near Durga Mandir, Hatia.
On seeing the informant party, the petitioner fled away. It is alleged
that huge quantity of railway articles were recovered from there.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had adduced
both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned trial court as
well as the learned appellate court on the basis of the evidence
available on the record came to a concurrent finding regarding the
guilt of the petitioner for the offence under section 3(a) of the R.P.
(U.P.) Act.
Arvind Kumar Lal C.W.12 is the complainant of this
case. He has supported the allegation made out in his written report
and has stated that on 14.05.1995, on the basis of confidential
information hut of the petitioner was raided. On seeing the
informant party the petitioner fled away and huge quantity of
railway articles were recovered from there. Seizure list was
prepared at the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list
which is Ext.-1. The other members of the raiding party have
corroborated the averment of the informant that hut of the petitioner
was raided from where large number of railway articles were
recovered.
The petitioner has adduced evidence in support of his
case that he has purchased the seized articles in an auction from
A.P.S. organization on 01.01.1989.
From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the
petitioner has admitted that Railway articles were seized from his
premises. The occurrence had taken place on 14.05.1995, that is
after 6 years from the date, when the petitioner is asserting that he
has purchased the seized articles in an auction sale. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be considered that for about 6 years. the
petitioner had stored the seized articles in his hut. In fact, the
petitioner has produced the purchase slip which are Ext.- A series to
show that the recovered articles were validly purchased by him. It
further appears from the sale slips (Ext.- A series) that description
of articles so purchased by him has not been mentioned so it cannot
be said that the articles purchased by the petitioner were same
which were seized by the informant party.
In view of the aforesaid fact; I am of the opinion that
both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court
have rightly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner
under section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction passed by the learned appellate court is upheld.
The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year
1995, that is about 28 years have elapsed. Section 3(a) of the R.P.
(U.P.) Act provides that sentence in case of the first offence to be
imprisonment not less than one year with alternative fine. The
sentence further prescribes that the accused may be sentenced to
fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/-.
Considering the fact that this case is very old, the
sentence passed by the learned trial court directing the petitioner to
undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under section 3(a) of the
R.P. (U.P.) Act is set aside. The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid offence. The petitioner shall deposit
the fine amount before the learned trial court within two months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the
petitioner shall undergo R.I. for two years as directed by the learned
trial court.
This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed
with the modification of sentence.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
