Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1123 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Sadhu v. State of Bihar

2012-08-14

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2012
JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present revision application is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 11.09.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2000 by which the judgment and order dated 06.12. 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in G.R. No. 2469 of 1994/ Tr. 340 of 2000, has been affirmed with some modification. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and one and a half years rigorous imprisonment under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court has modified the said conviction inasmuch as the conviction under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside whereas the conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been upheld but the sentence modified to six months rigorous imprisonment. 4. Earlier the case was admitted to hearing on the question of sentence only. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already spent more than a month in custody and is advanced in age. It is further submitted that though the allegation is of cheating but the prosecution failed to produce any material to show as to how and to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold the land which was initially to be sold to the informant. It is further submitted that the appellate court has noticed that the money taken as advance for such sale was returned to the informant and thus the conviction under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside. However, the appellate court has upheld the conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the petitioner had cheated the informant by not getting the sale deed executed in his favour. Learned counsel submits that once the informant had taken back the money and that too since it was he who had not fulfilled the stipulation of making payment in time, the conviction cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel submits that once the informant had taken back the money and that too since it was he who had not fulfilled the stipulation of making payment in time, the conviction cannot be sustained. 6. After going through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. 7. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties. Revision disposed of.