Partly allowed

Asgar Ali Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2018Cr.Rev./736/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition by an informant challenging the enhancement of fines on convicted accused. The court allowed the withdrawal of an enhanced fine amount already deposited by the accused, modifying the impugned order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw Rs. 20,000 deposited fine; impugned judgment modified to confine sentence to this amount.

Asgar Ali Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 736 of 2014

¶2

¶3

Asgar Ali Ansari .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others … Opposite Parties --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No. 2 to 7 : None --- Order No. 08 Dated 14^th August, 2018 ---

¶4

Heard Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned APP for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 7.

¶5

2. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. III, Giridih, by which the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1997 (T.R. No. 209 of 2007), convicting the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 has been modified and confined the same only with respect to the fine amount and the fine has been enhanced to Rs. 1,000/each and the opposite party No. 6 has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2,000/- as fine.

¶6

The petitioner being the informant is aggrieved with respect to the sentence imposed upon the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 by the learned appellate court while modifying the sentence passed by the learned trial court and confining the same only with respect to the fine amount.

¶7

The opposite parties No. 2 to 7 were convicted by the learned trial court for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and the opposite party No. 6 was separately convicted u/s 324 I.P.C. and they were ordered to undergo various sentences maximum of which was S.I. for one year. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 06.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 1275 of 1997 (T.R. No. 209 of 2007), the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. III, Giridih vide judgment dated 13.05.2014 had while upholding the conviction modified the sentence whereby the fine has been enhanced to Rs.

¶8

¶9

1,000/- each and the opposite party No. 6 has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2,000/- as fine.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed by the learned appellate court, the petitioner being the informant has preferred the present application.

¶11

Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner avenue with respect to enhancement of fine had been explored and the order dated 19.06.2018 which was passed in this case in presence of learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 reads as follows:-

¶12

“This application has been preferred by the petitioner who is the informant for enhancement of sentence imposed upon the opposite parties No. 2 to 7.

¶13

It appears that the appellate court had enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/- each to Rs. 2,000/- each which according to the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 has already been deposited by them before the learned court below. Since this matter is of the year 1997 avenues were explored with respect to further enhancement of fine amount to be paid by the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 on instruction fairly submitted that the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 are ready to deposit a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- before the learned court below within a period of four weeks.

¶14

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7, let this matter be listed after four weeks under the heading ‘For Orders’.

¶15

On the next of date of hearing, Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 shall inform this court as to whether this order has been complied with and as to whether the amount of Rs. 20,000/- in a lump sum has been deposited before the learned court below or not.

¶16

If such amount is deposited, the learned trial court is directed to keep the same in safe custody and shall not release it in favour of petitioner till an appropriate order is passed by this Court. List Accordingly.

¶17

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the respective parties. “

¶18

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 in which it has been stated that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as indicated in the order dated 19.06.2018 has already been deposited before the learned court below and the receipt has also been granted.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the enhancement of the fine amount which has been deposited by the opposite parties No. 2 to 7, the petitioner does not have any grievance.

¶20

¶21

On consideration of the fact that the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 has already deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and on the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,000/- which has been deposited by the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 before the learned court below and the judgment and order dated 13.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2007 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. III, Giridih is modified to the extent that the sentence imposed upon the opposite parties No. 2 to 7 shall concentrate only with respect to the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as fine.

¶22

This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and modification.

¶23

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶24

Asgar Ali Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asgar Ali Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

Samir Kumar Gupta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binay Panna Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nand Lal Sahu Alias Nand Lal Prasad And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Pratima Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Singh Alias Kishori Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalit Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand