Jharkhand High Court
Ranjan Singh S/O Akhileshwar Pd. Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.877 of 2016
....
Ranjan Singh S/o Akhileshwar Pd. Singh R/o Bartar
P.O. I.S.M. P.S. Dhanbad Dist-Dhanbad .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bijay Pratap Singh S/o Late C.D.Singh R/o Jai
Prakash Nagar, PO PS Dist-Dhanbad .... Opposite Parties
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
....
16/19.11.2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned APP.
2. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the
O.P. No.2.
3. The instant revision application has been filed against the judgment
dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in
Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2015 affirming the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by
the learned J.M.1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case
No.323 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No.1675 of 2004, whereby the
revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with
fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to under
SI for one month.
4. The prosecution story is that the revisionist has created a false
agreement for obtaining license from the Excise Department. The nature of
agreement is rent agreement for the purpose of running a liquor shop. The
allegation has been made by the landlord that his signature has been forged on
the rent agreement.
5. It appears that on the conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted
the revisionist for creating forged rent agreement and using it for the purpose of
obtaining license that is punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and he
has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default clause.
This order has been challenged by filing an appeal bearing Appeal
No.47 of 2015. The appellate court has sustained the conviction but sentencing
part has been reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount
has been maintained.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is a
mitigating circumstances which has not been taken into consideration. Since it is
business dispute, admittedly the revisionist has been given the shop and he was
running the shop and paying rent to the landlord. Further, this revisionist has no
criminal antecedent. It is purely a business transaction and this mitigating
circumstances has not been properly considered by the appellate court.
7. It appears that the year of accusation is 2004. The revisionist has faced
the trial for such a long period and has remained in custody for seven days also.
Subsequently he has been bailed out.
8. Considering the mitigating circumstances available in the present case,
the present criminal revision stands disposed of maintaining the conviction but
the sentencing part is modified to the extent that the imprisonment is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
9. The revisionist is directed to deposit the fine amount within two
months from today.
10. The revisionist has already been bailed out and as such he is discharge
from the liability of the bail bond.
11. With the above modification of the sentencing part, the present
criminal revision stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
Uploaded
-2- Cr. Revision No. 877 of 2016
