Allowed

Ram Nath Mahto And Ors. v. State of Bihar

Jharkhand HC3 Apr 2017Cr.A(DB)/89/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was disposed of as the appellants could not be directed to execute probation bonds 25 years after conviction. The court exonerated them from such bonds and directed that the conviction judgment should not act as a stigma.

What did the court decide?

Exonerated appellants from entering into probation bonds; directed that impugned judgment shall not act as a stigma on appellants.

Ram Nath Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 89 of 1992 (R)

¶2

Shashank Shekhar Mahto 2. Shail Pado Mahto

¶3

Sunil Mahto 4. Biranchi Mahto 5. Parikshit Mahto ..... … Appellants Versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) .…. … Respondent

¶4

-------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK -----For the Appellant : Mr. Pravin Shankar Dayal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P. --------

¶5

7/ 03.04.2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶6

Appellants Ram Nath Mahto and Kirtan Mahto had died during the pendency of this appeal and the abatement of their appeal has been recorded in the order dated 01.08.2016 itself. As such, this appeal survives only with respect to appellants named above.

¶7

The impugned Judgment dated 27.4.1992 passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.456 of 1986, shows that appellants Shashank Shekhar Mahto, Sunil Mahto and Parikshit Mahto were found guilty and convicted only for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, appellants Shail Pado Mahto and Biranchi Mahto were found guilty and convicted only for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, they were not sentenced to jail, rather, they were given the benefits of Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing them to enter into the probation bonds of Rs. 2000/- each, with one surety of the like amount each.

¶8

As the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence was passed on 27.4.1992 itself, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose is going to be served by directing these appellants to execute the bonds at this belated stage, after the expiry of about 25 years.

¶9

This appeal is accordingly, disposed of exonerating the appellants from entering into the bonds, as directed by the Court below. It is also directed that the impugned Judgment of conviction shall not act as a stigma upon the appellants.

¶10

This appeal stands disposed of with the directions as above.

¶11

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶12

R.Kr.

Ram Nath Mahto And Ors. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Mahto And Ors. v. State of Bihar

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

Smt.Sheela Devi Vs Dr.Braj Bhushan Singh

Pankaj Kumar Pandey Vs Education

Vinay Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Roshan Aara Vs Jahir Alam

Roshan Aara Vs Jahir Alam

Avinash Dubey Vs Smt Kiran Dubey