Jharkhand High Court
Amardip Minj vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party on 7 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 778 of 2015
Amardip Minj ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
---------
th
Order No. 06/Dated: 07 May, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, on the matter of
admission of this criminal revision application in presence of learned
A.P.P. Mrs. Shweta Singh.
It is submitted that this revision petition has been filed after
delay of 562 days, which has been condoned vide order dated
19.07.2016. The petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 241 and 324 of the I.P.C. by
the learned Trial Court in G.R. No. 461 of 2011, against which, the
appeal was preferred by the petitioner vide Criminal Appeal No. 58
of 2013 which was decided by Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar on
04.09.2014 and the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Section 324 of the I.P.C was set aside but his conviction and sentence
for the offences under Sections 323 and 241 of the I.P.C. has been
confirmed, but surprisingly, the petitioner was not extended the
benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act without
assigning any special reasons as required under the Probation of
Offenders Act, to which petitioner is entitled being his first offence
and no previous conviction.
Since, the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the
extent of not extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act and in the judgment of Trial Court, it is mentioned that
it was first offence of the petitioner and there is no previous
conviction, but due to injury caused by sharp weapon, punishable
under Section 324 of the I.P.C., for which the petitioner was held
guilty, he was not extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
The appellate court has set aside the conviction under Section 324 of
the I.P.C.
It also appears that the petitioner has remained in custody after
conviction for about two months and no objection has been raised by
learned A.P.P. regarding any previous conviction of the petitioner.
Under the aforementioned circumstances, this criminal revision
petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself with
modification in the sentence passed by learned Trial Court and
Appellate Court to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner, he shall be
called upon and to be admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act by the learned Trial Court.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court
within a period of three months from the date of this order for the
purpose of admonition.
Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to
the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Simran-Amar/
