Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 552 of 2007
---------
Suresh Kumar Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjit Kr. &
Mr. Pradip Kumar, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
---------
st
07/Dated: 1 February, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated
27.04.2007 passed by learned IX Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-
Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 2004; whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2004 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with G.R.
Case No. 778 of 2000 (T.R. No. 313 of 2004); whereby the petitioner was
convicted under section 25(1-B) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced
to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 25(1-b) (a) of the Arms Act and
one year S.I. for under section 26 of the Arms Act, and further directed that
both the sentences shall run concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal filed
by the petitioner 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
2000 and about 23 years have elapsed since then and the petitioner must has
suffered the mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that
this is the only case filed against the petitioner and there is no other criminal
antecedent against him. He further submits that the petitioner is middle aged
person and also remained in custody for about 137 days and 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 A.P.P. opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits
that there is concurrent finding and as such, no interference is required
though he fairly admits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
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 revisional jurisdiction, I am
not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the
judgment 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 2000 and 23 years have elapsed and the
petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 23 years and
the petitioner remained in custody for about 137 days and now he is a
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 in lieu
of fine.
8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by
the learned appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the
petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject
to the payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.
10,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A,
Ranchi; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned court below.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence/fine only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed
of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond
subject to fulfilment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and
Secretary D.L.S.A, Ranchi and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-
charge of concerned police station.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
