Jharkhand High Court
Rupai Manjhi S/O Late Baijnath Manjhi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... ... ... on 11 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1464 of 2015
Rupai Manjhi S/O Late Baijnath Manjhi,
Aged about 75 years
R/O Village- Tetabadia, P.O. + P.S.- Musabani,
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ... ... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Revision No. 1466 of 2015
Sanatan Manjhi S/O Late Mangal Manjhi,
Aged about 67 years
R/O Village- Boddih, P.O. + P.S.- Chakulia,
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ... ... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Revision No. 1468 of 2015
Mahesh Prasad Gupta S/O Lakshmi Prasad Gupta,
Aged about 64 years
R/O Village- Surda, P.O. + P.S.- Mosabani,
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ... ... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Revision No. 1473 of 2015
Ashok Kumar Chowdhary @ Ashok Chowdhary
S/O Late Kartik Chowdhary,
Aged about 58 years,
R/O villae- Mau Bhandar, B Block, ATA Flat No. 5715,
P.O. - Maubhandar, P.S.- Ghatshila,
District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
[in all the cases]
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
: Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI
: Mr. Kumar Swapnil, AC to ASGI
---
15/11.09.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Cr. Revision No. 1464 of 2015 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"That the instant revision application is being filed by the
petitioner named above for setting aside a Judgement dated
26.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2003 passed by
learned court of Kumari Ranjana Asthana, Judicial
Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Court below has been pleased to dismissed the Criminal
Appeal No. 38/2003 affirming the Judgment of conviction & order
of sentence dated 10.3.2003 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh,
Special J.M. (CBI), Ranchi in RC Case No.08A/1989(I) which
corresponds to T.R. No. 19/2003 whereby and where under the
petitioner was held guilty u/s 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three year for the offence u/s
420 of IPC, S.I. for three years for the offence u/s 468 of IPC and
S.I. for two years for the offence u/s 471 of IPC."
3. Cr. Revision No. 1466 of 2015 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"That the instant revision application is being filed by the
petitioner named above for setting aside a Judgement dated
26.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2003 passed by
learned court of Kumari Ranjana Asthana, Judicial
Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Court below has been pleased to dismissed the Criminal
Appeal No. 33/2003 affirming the Judgment of conviction & order
of sentence dated 10.3.2003 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh,
Special J.M. (CBI), Ranchi in RC Case No.08A/1989(D) which
corresponds to T.R. No. 15/2003 whereby and where under the
petitioner was held guilty u/s 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three year for the offence u/s
420 of IPC, S.I. for three years for the offence u/s 468 of IPC and
S.I. for two years for the offence u/s 471 of IPC."
4. Cr. Revision No. 1468 of 2015 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"That the instant revision application is being filed by the
petitioner named above for setting aside a Judgement dated
26.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2003 passed by
learned court of Kumari Ranjana Asthana, Judicial
Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned
Court below has been pleased to dismissed the Criminal Appeal
No. 32/2003 affirming the Judgment of conviction & order of
sentence dated 10.3.2003 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh,
Special J.M. (CBI), Ranchi in RC Case No.08A/1989(C) which
corresponds to T.R. No. 14/2003 whereby and where under the
petitioner was held guilty u/s 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three year for the offence u/s
420 of IPC, S.I. for three years for the offence u/s 468 of IPC and
S.I. for two years for the offence u/s 471 of IPC."
5. Cr. Revision No. 1473 of 2015 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"That the instant revision application is being filed by the
petitioner named above for setting aside a Judgement dated
26.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2003 passed by
learned court of Kumari Ranjana Asthana, Judicial
Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned
Court below has been pleased to dismissed the Criminal Appeal
No. 29/2003 affirming the Judgment of conviction & order of
sentence dated 28.2.2003 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh,
Special J.M. (CBI), Ranchi in RC Case No.08A/1989(A) which
corresponds to T.R. No. 13/2003 whereby and where under the
petitioner was held guilty u/s 420, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three year for the offence u/s
420 of IPC, S.I. for three years for the offence u/s 468 of IPC and
S.I. for two years for the offence u/s 471 of IPC."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all these
criminal revisions were admitted only on the point of sentence. The
learned counsel has further submitted that there were altogether 14
employees of Hindustan Copper Limited against whom allegation was
made with regard to forging documents in order to claim LTC.
7. Allegations against the petitioners was that, Rupai Manjhi
(petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1464 of 2015) produced forged bills for
availing LTC advance of Rs. 5700/-, Sanatan Manjhi (petitioner in Cr.
Rev. No. 1466 of 2015) produced forged bills for availing LTC
advance of Rs. 6700/-, Mahesh Prasad Gupta (petitioner in Cr. Rev.
No. 1468 of 2015) produced forged bills for availing LTC advance of
Rs. 11500/- and Ashok Kumar Chowdhary @ Ashok Chowdhary
(petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1473 of 2015) produced forged bills for
availing LTC advance of Rs. 7770/-. The learned counsel submits that
the present age of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1464 of 2015 is about
84 years, present age of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1466 of 2015 is
about 76 years, present age of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 1468 of 2015
is about 73 years and present age of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No.
1473 of 2015 is about 67 years.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
cases were instituted against these petitioners way back in the year
1989 and they have faced the criminal case for a long time. The trial
concluded after more than 13 years.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that each of the
petitioners have remained in custody during the pendency of revision
petitions and as per the records of this case for the following period: -
Name of petitioner /case number Period of custody
Criminal revision no. 1464 of 07.10.2015 to 05.04.2016 (order
2015 of bail by this court)
Criminal revision no. 1466 of 07.10.2015 to 05.04.2016 (order
2015 of bail by this court)
Criminal revision no. 1468 of 07.10.2015 to 06.04.2016 (order
2015 of bail by this court)
Criminal revision no. 1473 of 07.10.2015 to 06.04.2016 (order
2015 of bail by this court)
10. The learned counsel submits that a few days must have been
taken for the petitioners to furnish bail bonds. He submits that
considering the totality of facts and circumstances of these cases and
the fact that the petitioners have remained in custody for about six
months and have faced the criminal case for a long time and also
considering their present age, the sentence be modified. He submits
that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed under the
sections in which the petitioners have been convicted. He also submits
that the petitioners have also been dismissed from service.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
there is no other criminal case against the petitioners and the
petitioners have not been convicted in any other criminal case.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has
opposed the prayer. However, he has submitted that it is for the Court
to consider the point of sentence as the case has been admitted only on
the point of sentence.
13. These cases have been admitted only on the point of sentence
and the learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued
accordingly.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of these cases this Court finds
that the petitioners have faced the criminal case since the year 1989
and about 35 years have already elapsed. The trial also concluded after
expiry of 13 years. All the petitioners are at present senior citizens and
are in the advanced stage of their life. As per the records, the
petitioners have not been convicted in any other criminal case. In view
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the sentence of the petitioners is fit to be
modified and fine amount be imposed.
15. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioners under each
of the sections for which the petitioners have been convicted i.e.
sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is reduced to the
period already undergone by them in custody with fine of Rs. 30,000/-
each to be deposited by the petitioners before the learned Court within
a period of four months from today.
16. In case the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated
time, the petitioners would serve the sentence as awarded by the
learned court. It is further directed that in case of non-deposit of the
fine amount, the learned court shall immediately take all steps so that
the concerned petitioner serves the sentence.
17. These criminal revision petitions are accordingly disposed of
with modification of sentence.
18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Let the
records be immediately sent to the concerned court.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through 'FAX'.
Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
