Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Lugun vs The State Of Jharkhand ....... Opp. ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.837 of 2017
Sunil Lugun ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Alam, APP
-----------
th
07/Dated:11 December, 2023
This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.05.2017 passed in Cr.
Appeal No.52 of 2015 by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-Simdega by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by
the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2015 and 20.08.2015
respectively passed by Sri Satyal, learned C.J.M, Simdega in G.R.
Case No.373 of 2014, corresponding to Bano (Girda O.P.) P.S. Case
No.43/2014 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the
offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms act and under section
26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three (03) years
and R.I. for three (03) years respectively and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and Rs.500/- respectively.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for
the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below
are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. However, learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that appellant has
remained in custody for around two years and ten months out of R.I
for three years and has served his sentence considerably and as such
lenient view may be taken.
4. No objection has been raised by the learned APP appearing for
the State.
5. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered
the submission of both the sides.
6. It appears that this is a case of recovery of one Pistol and three
cartridges from the possession of the petitioner.
7. It appears that the petitioner was taken in custody on the date of
lodging of the F.I.R dated 27.09.2014 and even after dismissal of the
criminal appeal, he was in custody and he has been granted bail by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this case on 25.07.2017.
8. Thus, it appears that the petitioner remained in custody for
around two years and ten months and has almost served the sentence.
9. Considering the submission that petitioner Sunil Lugun has
served the sentence for a long period and conviction of the petitioner
has not been challenged, the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Court below for the offences under Section 25(1-B)a of the
Arms Act and under section 26 of the Arms Act is hereby confirmed.
However, so far the sentence is concerned, considering the fact that
the petitioner Sunil Lugun has remained in custody for around two
years and ten months, and hence the period undergone by the
petitioner in jail shall be the period of sentence of the petitioner Sunil
Lugun.
10. In view of the fact that the petitioner namely Sunil Lugun is on
bail by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed on
25.07.2017, the petitioner Sunil Lugun is discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
11. Thus, the instant Cr. Revision No.837 of 2017 is dismissed
with modification in sentences as mentioned above.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
