Jharkhand High Court
Hassan Imam @ Md. Hassan Imam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 341 of 2009
Hassan Imam @ Md. Hassan Imam ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP
--------
11/ 03.01.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 25.02.2005, passed by learned VIth Additional
Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2003/
7 of 2004, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2003 in
G.R. No. 51 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 364 of 2003, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, whereby
the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three years under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code, and to undergo SI for three years under Section 420 of the
IPC, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has
been affirmed.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant,
Md. Muslim Lalkar filed a complaint case before the learned C.J.M,
Hazaribag wherein he stated that he was the owner of Trekker
bearing Registration No. BHM 438 of 1979 and used it for
commercial purposes. The accused-petitioner wanted to grab the
trekker from the complainant, therefore he proposed the
complainant to sell his trekker and on 15.10.1981 the complainant
sold the trekker for Rs. 63,001/- and to this effect a deed was
executed in respect of the sale. The complainant handed over all the
documents relating to trekker to the accused-petitioner and they
made an agreement that all the taxes accruing from the trekker shall
be paid by accused-petitioner right from 15.10.81 and he alone shall
be accountable for the criminal and civil liabilities arising out of
trekker. Further, the complainant was arrested on the strength of
warrant of arrest issued by the District Certificate Officer for
allegedly making default on payment of road tax from 1.04.1982 to
30.09.1992 which was to the tune of Rs. 72268.18 and he was sent
to jail in civil prison on 05.09.1997 and was released only after
making part payment of Rs. 29,000/-. After release from jail the
complainant asked the accused-petitioner to pay the taxes but he
denied to make any such payment. The complainant further stated
that the accused-petitioner has committed an offence punishable u/s
420 of IPC and having received the trekker under agreement to pay
taxes misappropriated the amount which is also an offence
punishable u/s 406 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
incident is of the year 1998 and he confines his argument on the
question of sentence as the petitioner remained in custody for
about 206 days. He further submits that now the petitioner is aged
about 66 years and during entire period of bail, he never misused
the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified for the
period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment
and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the
Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the impugned judgments including the lower
courts records and keeping in mind the limited 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 upheld by the learned appellate court is,
hereby sustained.
6. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from
record that the incident is of the year 1998 and 24 years have
elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of
litigation for all these years. Further, petitioner remained in
custody for about 206 days and during entire period of bail he
never misused the privilege of bail.
7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to
prison and interest of justice would be sufficed that the sentence
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.
8. With the aforesaid observation and modification in
sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands
disposed of.
9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of
his bail bond.
10. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
court below.
11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
