Partly allowed

Haru Paul v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Nov 2019Cr.Rev./458/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an affirmed conviction for theft, the High Court confirmed the judgment but modified the sentence from six months imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 2,000, considering the elapsed time and petitioner's age, retaining liability for time already served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to two thousand rupees fine subject to period already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bonds.

Haru Paul Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.458 of 2003

¶2

Haru Paul ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Moti Gope, APP -----

¶3

05/Dated: 21/11/2019

¶4

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 26.10.2002, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-V), Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.123/2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2001, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.4607/94 (T.R. No.323/2001), whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months, has been affirmed.

¶5

At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only by submitting that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the incident is of the year 1994 and the petitioner has suffered rigors of litigation for about 25 years and also remained in custody for more than a month. At present the petitioner is aged about 57 years and as such sending him back to prison will not suffice the interest of justice. He further submits that he is only bread earner for his family and as such some leniency may be granted by this Court.

¶6

Per contra, the learned APP for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶7

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of the revisional 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

¶8

-2-

¶9

is, hereby, confirmed.

¶10

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1994 and 25 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 25 years and also remained in custody for more than one month. 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.2,000/-.

¶13

It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of 2 months from today before the learned Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶19

Pramanik/

Haru Paul v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haru Paul v. 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

Panchu Sao Vs State of Bihar

Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Adhikari Garia Vs State of Jharkhand

Sukumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishore Jaiswal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand