Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

Jharkhand HC27 Jan 2017W.P.(Cr.)/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a sentence order passed in his absence. The court held that an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for postponement is not maintainable at the time of pronouncing judgment or passing sentence. The aggrieved party may file a statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the sentence order is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file a statutory appeal if aggrieved.

Rajendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(Cr.) No. 2 of 2017

¶3

Rajendra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Muni Singh, R/o Quarter No. F/55, Near ICC Factory, P.O. + P.S.- Jharia, District- Dhanbad.

¶4

... … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ... … Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate ---------

¶9

03/27.01.2017 Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.

¶10

In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2016 by which an application preferred by the petitioner u/s 317 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the learned court below has passed an order of sentence in absence of the petitioner.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been submitted that since the petitioner was vomiting blood and was admitted in Kothari Medical Centre, the petitioner could not appear on the date of the pronouncement of the sentence and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is against the provision of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. the order of sentence was passed which itself is a very harsh order as the period of custody undergone by the petitioner has not been set off. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a gross error in the order of sentence the same should be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to appear and argue for minimizing the sentence to be awarded to him.

¶12

Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that at the time of pronouncement of sentence after the judgment of conviction is passed an application u/s 317 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It has been submitted that since the petitioner did not appear the learned court below did not have any option but to

¶13

-2-

¶14

pass the order of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of sentence the petitioner can appeal against the order of conviction and sentence in a separate proceeding of appeal.

¶15

It appears that the petitioner was convicted on 15.12.2016. Although an application was preferred by the petitioner for postponement of the Judgment but the Judgment was delivered on the date it was fixed. It appears that the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 317 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected on 15.12.2016 and rightly so as no such application is maintainable at the time of pronouncing of the Judgment or passing an award of sentence. If the petitioner indeed is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 the petitioner has an alternative remedy of a statuary appeal challenging the same in which if there is an error in the judgment of conviction or for that matter in the award of sentence the same could be looked into by the appellate court.

¶16

In such circumstances, therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere in this application with respect to the order of sentence passed against the petitioner and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶17

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶18

Alok/-

Rajendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jaigun Bibi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Marwari Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nilmani Mahto and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumant Kumar Singh Alias Sumant Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Smt Lalo Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.