Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 244 (JHR)

Md. Nasimuddin v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with co-convicts, has been partly allowed. 2. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 22.02.2012, passed in G.R. Case No. 190 of 2005 (T.R. No. 164/2012), convicted and sentenced the petitioner along with co-convicts for the offence under Sections 25 (1-b) a/ 35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act. 3. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal only to the extent that the conviction against the petitioner has been confirmed whereas the co-convicts were acquitted. 4. After some arguments on merit of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that now he is not involved in any criminal case and residing with his family peacefully. He further submits that sending the petitioner back to prison will ruin his entire family as such interest of justice would be sufficed, if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. He concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 7 months. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P supports the impugned order. He further submits that as per letter dated 13.01.2020 which is annexed as Annexure-R-1 to the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case except the present one. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court record and keeping in mind the limited submission of the petitioner and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court, is hereby, confirmed. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2005 and about 15 years has elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 198 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the privilege of bail. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2005 and about 15 years has elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 198 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months from today before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court. 10. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of. 11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 12. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith. 13. Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Bokaro through FAX.