Allowed

Shyampado Sarkar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./1016/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No.1016 of 2013, the High Court of Jharkhand confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for Section 409 IPC but modified the sentence from two years of rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs.10,000/-, considering the petitioner's age and the elapsed time since the incident.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified from 2 years RI + Rs.5000/- fine to Rs.10,000/- fine; petitioner discharged from bail bonds.

Shyampado Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1016 of 2013

¶2

Shyampado Sarkar ….. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, APP -----

¶7

10/Dated: 22/11/2019

¶8

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2013, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.30 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed with modification and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.2073/05, arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.396/05, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo additional SI for one month has been modified to the extent that the learned appellate court while affirming the conviction reduced to sentence from RI of 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- to RI of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner is very old and at present he is about 70 years. He further submits that there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner save and except the present one. He concluded his argument by submitting that looking to the age of the petitioner and his antecedent some relief may be granted by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned APP supports the impugned order, however, did not dispute to the fact that the petitioner is an old man and there is no criminal antecedent.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. After going through the impugned orders including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited

¶12

-2-

¶13

submission of the counsel for the petitioner, 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, confirmed.

¶14

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2005 and 14 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 14 years and also remained in custody for 13 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶15

In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶16

Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below 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/-.

¶17

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA Dhanbad.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.

¶19

The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶20

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶21

Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and the Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad.

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶23

Pramanik/

Shyampado Sarkar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyampado Sarkar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Haru Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

Sukumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Das and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand