Allowed

Budhan Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Feb 2021Cr.M.P./274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for modification regarding the fine payment timeline in a Section 409 IPC case. It granted petitioners a further six weeks to deposit fines; failure to do so results in serving the remainder of the sentenced period.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.9.2019 was modified to grant the petitioners an additional six weeks to pay the specified fines; otherwise, they must serve the rest of the sentence.

Budhan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.274 of 2021

¶2

¶3

Budhan Munda

¶4

Bhuneshwar Gope

¶5

Jago Munda

¶6

Mikal Tigga

¶7

Suraj Nath Mahto

¶8

..… Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

….. Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate

¶15

02/19.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶16

2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, defects as pointed out by the Registry is hereby ignored for the time being.

¶17

3. The instant application has been preferred for modification of the order dated 20.09.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2013, whereby though the conviction ordered by the learned trial court was sustained, however, the sentence part was modified to the extent that the petitioners were sentenced to undergo for a period already undergone subject to the payment of cost by respective petitioners.

¶18

4. Paragraph 9 and 10 of the order dated 20.9.2019 of Criminal Revision No.68 of 2013 is quoted herein below:

¶19

“ 9. In this view of the matter, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and concurred by the learned appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for a period already undergone, subject to the payment of costs by the respective petitioners stated hereinbelow:

¶20

(i) The petitioner No.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶21

(ii) Petitioner No.2 is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-

¶22

(iii) Petitioner No.3 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-

¶23

-2-

¶24

(iv) Petitioner No.4 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- and

¶25

(v) Petitioner No.5 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/-,

¶26

It is made clear that all the petitioners are directed to pay the fine as mentioned hereinabove within a period of three months from today failing which, they shall serve rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned appellate court in connection with Section 409 I.P.C. ”

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners are poor villagers and were working outside their native village and that is the reason they could not know about the result of the criminal revision case and the moment they came to know they made contact with the counsel and for all these reasons the time for depositing the fine as mentioned in Para 9 of the aforesaid order has lapsed. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the time as mentioned in Para 10 may be modified to the extent that the petitioners may be given liberty to deposit the fine amount as indicated in Para 9 of the aforesaid order within a further period of six weeks from today.

¶28

6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for modification.

¶29

7. Having regard to the facts of the case, the instant application is allowed and the order dated 20.9.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2013 is modified to the extent that the petitioners are directed to pay the fine as mentioned in Paragraph 9 of the said order within a period of six weeks from today failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned appellate court in connection with Section 409 I.P.C.

¶30

8. With the aforesaid modification in Paragraph 10 of the Order dated 20.9.2019 passed in Cr. Revision No.68 of 2013, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed and disposed of.

¶31

-3-

¶32

9. Let this order be communicated through Fax at the cost of the petitioner.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

sm/

Budhan Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhan Munda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Siyaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Poulus Horo And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vakil Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Madan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prasad Tirkey Vs Human Resources Department