Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 17 of 2010
-------
Birendra Prasad Sharma ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih..... ....Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State :Mrs. Sweta Singh, APP
.........
06/27.02.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated
26.11.2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in
Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned J.M, 1st Class,
Giridih, in Forest case no.640/95, corresponding to T.R. No.204/2000;
whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 42(i) of
I.F. Act as well as u/s 20 of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation and Trade) Act,
1984 and Section 14 of Bihar Saw Mill Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for
a period of one year under Section 42(i) of I.F. Act, S.I. for a period of Six
months u/s 20 of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation and Trade) Act, 1984 and
S.I. for six months u/s 14 of Bihar Saw Mill Act and all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently; has been modified and the appeal filed by the
petitioner was partly allowed.
The appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for the offence
u/s 20 of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation and Trade) Act, 1984, however
affirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 42(i) of I.F. Act and
Section 14 of Bihar Saw Mill Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for
modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the
year 1995. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of
litigation for last 28 years and he also remained in custody for about 18 days.
As such at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will
hamper his entire family as at present petitioner is aged about 70 years; as
such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period
already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and
submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As
such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be
modified in lieu of fine.
5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower
court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties 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 modified 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 1995 and about 28 years have elapsed
and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28
years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail
and he also remained in custody for about 18 days and at present he is aged
about 70 years.
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 with regard to Section 42(1) of I.F.Act and
Section 14 of Bihar Saw Mill Act passed by the trial court and upheld by the
appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is
sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment
of fine of Rs.7,500/-.
9. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of
Rs.7,500/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A.,
Giridih, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned courts below.
10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail
bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below,
Secretary, D.L.S.A., Giridih 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.)
Fahim/-
