Arun Prasad @ Arun Kumar Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1261 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Arun Prasad @ Arun Kumar Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                        2025:JHHC:21067



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Rev. No. 510 of 2025
                          -----

Arun Prasad @ Arun Kumar Prasad, S/o Mundrika Prasad, R/o Village-H. No.25 Bamangora, P.O. & P.S.-Parsudih, Dist.-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... .... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Rajender Gope @ Rajender Yadav, S/o Late Gandur Yadar, R/o Village- Lekotoli Bharno, P.O. & P.S.-Bharno, Dist.-Gumla, Jharkhand ... .... Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioner        : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
                          -----
Oral Order
0    / Dated : 30.07.2025

1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder, a sentence for rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- have been inflicted under Section 420 of IPC, which have been affirmed in appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of sentence. He has submitted that gravamen of the allegation of the petitioner is that this petitioner and other had taken about Rs. 21 Lakh from PWs 5 and 6 on a false promise to get them employment in a Government Department. Once the promise did not materialize, the case was lodged.

3. Without entering into the merit of the case, it is submitted that the complainant is in pari delicto with the petitioner and the amount as per the allegation was not advanced for any legal purpose. The petitioner has served about two years of imprisonment out of three years.

4. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Notice had been served on O.P. No.2, but none has appeared on his behalf.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find merit in the submissions advanced that the amount advanced was not for a legal 2025:JHHC:21067

purpose and the petitioner has already undergone about two years of imprisonment.

6. Under the circumstance, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent of the period already undergone, which will meet the ends of justice.

This Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid modification of substantive sentence. The petitioner will be depositing the fine amount before the Trial Court failing which he will serve the default sentence.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra