Umar Sharif vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 560 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. Revision No. 560 of 2016

         Umar Sharif                       ...     ...           Petitioner
                                      -   Versus -
         The State of Jharkhand            ...   ...          Opposite Party
                        ------

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

-----

         For the Petitioner        : M/s. Md Abdul Wahab, Advocate
         For the State            : M/s. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
                                     -----

03/02.02.2023            The petitioner Umar Sharif has preferred this

application against judgment dated 09.03.2016, passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 114/2012 whereby and wherein the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned J.M.F.C, Jamshedpur under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 105/2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 2439/2001 and thereby releasing him on probation of good conduct for maintaining peace for a period of one year on a bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

This appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

It is alleged that on 28.11.2001, the petitioner had illegally entered into quarter no. 35-M2. P.S.B., located at Kadma, south area Jamshedpur. It was alleged that the petitioner was neither employee of Tata Steel Company Ltd. nor he had any right to occupy any quarter or illegally trespass into the aforesaid premises.

Both the learned trial court as well as the learned Apex Court have come to a concurrent finding about the guilt of the petitioner for illegally occupying quarter no. 35-M2. P.S.B., located at Kadma, south area Jamshedpur.

Mr. Abdul Wahab, learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already executed a bond of Rs. 5,000/-for maintaining peace and good behavior as directed by the learned court below and as such he had already complied with direction imposing the sentence.

Considering the concurrent finding on the facts, both by the learned trial court and the appellate Court, I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the trial court as well as appellate court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Saurabh