Sita Ram Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1879 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2009

              Sita Ram Yadav                         ---            ---      Petitioner
                                               Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. Chanwa Devi                        ---          ---    Opp. Parties
                                                   ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

---

For the Petitioner: Miss Kavita Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the O.P-State: Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.

---

12 / 02.05.2023 Petitioner-Sita Ram Yadav has filed this Criminal Revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2008 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta No. 1, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 3, Daltonganj at Palamau in S.T. No. 262/2004 arising out of Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 26/2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 336/2004, holding the petitioner Sita Ram Yadav guilty for the offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Office has pointed out that this criminal revision application will not be maintainable as this application has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in a Sessions Trial.

3. Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that any person convicted on a trial held by the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, .................., may appeal to the High Court.

Section 324 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly mandates that Criminal Appeal will lie against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Office has rightly pointed out that this Revision Application will not be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid mandate of law, this revision application is not maintainable.

4. This revision application is dismissed as being not maintainable.

5. Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae has ably assisted this Court during hearing of this revision application. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to Ms. Kavita Kumari for the services rendered by her as Amicus Curiae.

(Ambuj Nath, J)

Ranjeet/