Orissa High Court
Karunakar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party(S) on 24 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.1415 OF 2008
Karunakar Sahoo .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel for
Vigilance Department
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
24.06.2024
I.A. No.157 of 2021 and CRLREV No.1415 of 2008
Order No.
06. 1. The present Revision Petition is arising out of the
judgment and order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2007, whereby
the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Cuttack convicting the petitioner and sentencing him for
offence under Sections 417/471/419 of I.P.C. has been confirmed.
2. The trial court by a separate order has passed the following
sentence which has been confirmed by the appellate court:
"HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF SENTENCE
Heard the accused and his learned Advocate on the question
of sentence. It is submitted that the accused is a pretty Oldman
and the offence was committed in the remote past and therefore
a lenient view should be taken while imposing punishment.
Admittedly, the accused was born in the year 1946 and therefore
he has crossed age of 60. In the meantime, he must have retired
from the service. He has faced the litigation for a period of 13
years. Considering the age of accused and the protracted trial, I
feel a lenient view must be taken while imposing punishment.
Accused is accordingly sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- I.D. to undergo further S.I. of three
months for the offence U/s.471 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo
S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- I.D. to undergo
further S.I. of two months for the offence u/s.419 of the I.P.C.
No sentence is imposed for the offence U/s.417 IPC as the said
offence merged in offence U/s.419 IPC in which the accused has
been convicted. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall
run concurrently and the period of detention of accused, if any,
during course of trial in this case shall be set off from the
substantive sentence."
3. During pendency of the present Revision Petition, the sole
accused-petitioner has expired on 15.08.2019. Therefore, on
23.03.2021 the wife of the sole deceased-petitioner moved an
application being I.A. No.157 of 2021 inter alia praying to
prosecute the Criminal Revision Petition.
4. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the substituted petitioner submits that in so far as the sentence
awarded against the petitioner is concerned, the same may be
modified in view of the development that has taken place in the
meantime. The alleged offence has allegedly taken place way back
in the year 1977 and the deceased has already expired. Therefore,
the fine amount imposed against the deceased-petitioner may be
waived. The prayer of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
deserves merit. Accordingly, the same is allowed. While
maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts
below, the fine imposed on the deceased-petitioner stands waived.
5. Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed and the Revision Petition
stands abated with aforementioned variation in the sentence order.
Digitally Signed Judge
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Jun-2024 17:11:31
