Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 309 (PAT)

Sarjug Singh v. State Of Bihar

2009-02-24

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. 1. The instant revision application is directed against the Judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 161 of 2004 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna whereby he sustained the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Patna in R.C. No. 3 of 1986 under Sections 420, 466 and 468 of I.P.C. read with Section 120 B of I.P.C. Different sentences were ordered for different sections. Maximum sentence awarded under any of the sections was two years and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Besides fine of Rs. 500/- was also awarded and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment was awarded. 2. The petitioners were charged for getting bail on the basis of forged bail order purported to have been passed vide order dated 10.8.1984 by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 621/1984. 3. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and over 43 Exts. in respect of its case whereas defence did not adduce any single witness. It appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they supported the prosecution case. As such the trial court passed order of conviction vide its Judgment dated 17.9.2004 in R.C. Case No. 3 of 1986. An appeal preferred against the aforesaid Judgment was also dismissed by the appellate court vide its Judgment dated 16.12.2008. It appears that the appellate court after considering the evidence of prosecution as well as the case of defence dismissed the appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 466 and 467 of I.P.C. 4. This Court does not find any material to interfere with the impugned order of conviction as well as sentence passed by both the appellate court as well as the trial court. In the result this revision application is dismissed. 5. However, as the petitioners have remained in custody for more than two years and eight months though the sentence of conviction is of only two years, this Court directs that they, Sarjug Singh and Janakdeo Singh, should be released forth with, if they are not warranted in any other case. As the petitioners have remained in custody for eight months more than their maximum cumulative sentence the payment of fine is waived. As the petitioners have remained in custody for eight months more than their maximum cumulative sentence the payment of fine is waived. Even as per the order of both the trial court and the appellate court the petitioners in case do not deposit the fine then in default of payment of the same they would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioners have already undergone thirty months of imprisonment, eight months more than the punishment imposed. This aspect fully will takes case of default part. 6. As such this Court directs release of petitioners from custody forth with, if not wanted in any other case. With the aforesaid direction this revision application stands dismissed. Let a release order be sent immediately.