Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1110 (JHR)

Pankaj Kumar Prasad @ Lallu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-02

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.2003 passed by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2000; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, corresponding to G.R No.346/95, T.R. No.340/2000; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence under Section 25(1-B) Arms Act and to undergo R.I. for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act; has been modified. The Appellate Court has sustained the conviction, however modified the sentence to the extent to undergo R.I. for one year u/S 25(1-B) Arms Act with fine of Rs.500/ and to undergo R.I. for one and half year u/S 26 Arms Act with fine of Rs.500/-. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on a secret information, the informant-Officer In-charge of Saraidhela Police Station along with other police personnel reached at Ajay Talkies. On seeing the police parties one person tried to escape and he was apprehended. After searching his body, a country made pistol with .315 live cartridges was seized from his conscious physical possession. On the basis of the informant, the instant case was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally he was convicted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner except this case. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for modifying the sentence in lieu of fine as now the petitioner is aged about 46 years respectively and he remained in custody for about 103 days and sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of 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, sustained. 7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1995 and about 27 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 27 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 103 days. 8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the 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.5,000/-. 10. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before the DLSA, Dhanbad; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below. 11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is disposed of. 12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station. 14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.