Jharkhand High Court
Gayasuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:22318 )
2018:JHHC:4405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2001
Gayasuddin Ansari, son of Naluni Ansari, Bariatu Basti,
P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
-----
07/07.08.2025 Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Mahua Palit, learned counsel for the State.
2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated
31.05.2001 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in
Criminal Appeal No.76 of 1995, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed with
some modification of the sentence, which was against the judgment of
conviction dated 08.08.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No.594 of 1987 under Sections 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, whereby, the learned trial court has been pleased to
sentence the appellant to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 409 of
the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code and further direction has been made that all the
sentences will run concurrently and the appellate Court has been pleased to
reduce and modified the sentence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
from three years to two years and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
from two years to one year.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged by
the informant, namely, Gopal Kshatri alleging therein that the informant was
-1- Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2001
( 2025:JHHC:22318 )
2018:JHHC:4405
owner of land bearing R.S. Plot No.2651/A Khata No.239 area 21 Katha
bearing Ranchi Municipal Corporation Holding No.2162/3, Ward No.VII C,
Booty Road, Ranchi. It was alleged that the petitioner and informant entered
into an agreement for sale of the said property either to him or any body
through him for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. He further submits that it
was also alleged that the petitioner made payment of advance of Rs.25,000/-
and later on, on the request of the petitioner the informant agreed to sale
the said land in favour of Militalimi Mission, Ranchi for consideration of
Rs.3,00,000/- and, accordingly, permission was obtained from the Income Tax
Department and clearance certificate was granted on 19.12.1986. He submits
that it was further alleged that as the informant was not keeping good health,
the petitioner requested the informant to execute a power of attorney in his
favour. The informant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the
petitioner for the purpose of selling the property and it was also mentioned
therein that the land should not be sold less than the price agreed upon. It
was also alleged that subsequently the petitioner executed a sale deed in
favour of his wife, namely, Khatija Khatoon with respect to the said property
in the capacity of attorney of the informant on payment of consideration of
Rs.2,000/-. When the informant came to know about it, the FIR has been
lodged by the informant. He then submits that after taking cognizance on
06.08.1990 of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, charges were framed and the learned Court has found the petitioner
guilty under Section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the wife of
the petitioner, namely, Khatija Khatoon was found guilty under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code for conniving with her husband and committed
-2- Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2001
( 2025:JHHC:22318 )
2018:JHHC:4405
cheating and dishonestly induced the informant to execute the power of
attorney and by changing the words in the power of attorney. He further
submits that the prosecution examined four witnesses. He also submits that
Ext.1 is the clearance certificate from Income Tax Department, Ext.2 is the
paper alleged to be written on 02.01.1987 for cancellation of the sale deed
by the petitioner. Ext.4 is the judgment passed in Title Suit No.54 of 1988,
Ext.5 is the judgment passed in Second Appeal No.10/1990 and Second
Appeal No.10 of 1994(R) and Ext.6 is the certified copy of Execution Case
No.22 of 1990. He also submits that the case is of the year 1987 and the
learned trial court has concluded the trial vide judgment dated 08.08.1995
and, thereafter, the appeal preferred by the appellant has been decided vide
judgment dated 31.05.2001. He further submits that the wife of the petitioner
has been acquitted by the first appellate court on the ground of Section 360
Cr.P.C. and sentence of the present petitioner has been modified in the above
manner. He submits that the petitioner has already faced the rigor of the trial
since the year 1987 and he is aged more than 70 years. He further submits
that the petitioner has not been convicted in any other criminal case and no
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Sections 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the learned first
appellate court has modified the sentence and trauma the petitioner has
already faced in light of pending criminal proceeding.
5. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
finds that the petitioner has faced rigor of the criminal case since the year
-3- Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2001
( 2025:JHHC:22318 )
2018:JHHC:4405
1987 and about 38 years have already elapsed. The petitioner is said to be a
senior citizen at present and he is in the advanced stage of his life and he has
not been convicted in any other criminal case and no minimum sentence has
been prescribed under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code under
which sections the petitioner has been convicted. In light of that, the Court
finds that it is a fit case to modify the sentence by way of imposing fine.
6. In view of the above discussions, the sentence awarded to the
petitioner under each of the sections for which the petitioner has been
convicted i.e. Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to
the period already undergone by him in custody with fine of Rs.30,000/- to
be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court within a period
of four months from the date of communication of the judgement to the trial
court.
7. In case the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the
petitioner would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. It
is further made clear that in case of non-deposit of the fine amount, the
learned trial court shall immediately take all steps so that the petitioner serves
the sentence.
8. This criminal revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the
aforesaid modification of the sentence.
9. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
10. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the concerned Court.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court concerned.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
-4- Criminal Revision No. 283 of 2001
