Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 24 (JHR)

Jitendra Nath Mangia v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-16

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
ORDER D.N. Prasad J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the CBI as well as the State on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act at flag X and also on the main application and with their consent, the whole matter is being disposed of on merit. 2. This Revision application has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate. CBI Ranchi in RC Case No. 10/1978 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 120B. IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default three months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 120B read with Section 420. IPC and further he sentenced under Section 120B for a period to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 3. The case was registered against the petitioner and others for committing cheating and forgery in respect of submission of forged bills and drawing a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by way of committing cheating and forgery. The CBI after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet. The petitioner namely. Jitendra Nath Mangia appeared before the Court below and pleaded guilty. Thereafter, his statement under Section 313. Cr PC was recorded by the Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. the manner, as stated above. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence before the Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1981. The said appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence only that both sentences shall run concurrently. 5. On being aggrieved by the impugned judgment in appeal, this revision has been preferred claiming therein that the order, of the learned Judicial Commissioner passed in appeal was actually received by the trial Court on 14.9.1990 whereas conviction warrant was issued on 19.4.1996. It is also stated that the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed as back as on 17.9.1981 and the petitioner is aged about 65 years old and he is also suffering from various ailments and as such the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is fit to be set aside. 6. It is also stated that the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed as back as on 17.9.1981 and the petitioner is aged about 65 years old and he is also suffering from various ailments and as such the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is fit to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the petitioner has already been arrested in this case on 1.11.2000 and he has now been in custody as well as one supplementary affidavit to this affect has already been filed. It is further argued that the petitioner has sufficiently been punished and he has already remained is custody for more than one month and the case is also pending for the last 19 years as there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner as such the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be converted into fine or a period already undergone. He also relied upon a decision reported in 2000 (3) Eastern Criminal cases, 1012 (SC) (Ram Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan). 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submitted before me that the revision is not maintainable in view of the fact that it is time barred and it has been filed after 14 years, though the petitioner had full knowledge about filing of appeal which was dismissed as buck as in the year 1986 and this much is also admitted that the record alongwith judgment of appeal was received in the lower Court in the year 1990, but even then the petitioner was absconding in the case and tried to evade in complying the order. It is further argued that the petitioner committed forgery and also misappropriated huge amount by submitting forged bills convenance with other accused persons and there is no illegality in the Impugned judgment as regards to the conviction and sentence. 8. The instant revision has been filed after lapse pf 14 years. Moreover, earlier the petitioner had filed Civil Writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was latter on converted into revision. It further appeared that the petitioner had already been arrested in the case on 1.11.2000 and he was remanded in jail custody on 2.11.2000. 8. The instant revision has been filed after lapse pf 14 years. Moreover, earlier the petitioner had filed Civil Writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was latter on converted into revision. It further appeared that the petitioner had already been arrested in the case on 1.11.2000 and he was remanded in jail custody on 2.11.2000. It is also apparent that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was already dismissed as back as In the year 1986 and the record was received by the Court below on 14.9.1990. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner was quite aware about the result of the appeal but even then he remained absconding. The facts of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable. In that very case, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about nine month. Moreover, in this case, sentence has already been modified in appeal as both sentence shall run concurrently. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, there appears no material for interfering with the sentence passed in this case. Moreover, this revision has been filed after 14 years and it is barred by limitation. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision application and limitation petition. Thus, both applications are, hereby, dismissed. 11. Petition dismissed.