Petitioners filed a criminal revision appealing a judgment modifying sentences and granting probation. Counsel abandoned the appeal accepting the probation order. The High Court dismissed the revision as not pressed.
Criminal revision application dismissed as not pressed by petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.377 of 2012
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through Video Conferencing
05/09.08.2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, is present.
2. The present criminal revision application has been filed for the following relief:
“The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners has been dismissed on merit, but with modification in sentence to the extent that the appellants have been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below with condition to maintain peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years. In case of violation of the condition of bond, they may be called upon to sustain the sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the judgment of conviction dated 8.7.2011, passed by learned J.M. Ist Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No.82/2006/ T.R. No.785/2011 (arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.6/06, dated 12.01.16) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 341/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I for one month , further convicted u/s 324/34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year, further convicted u/s 325/34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine
2
imprisonment for another 15 days each, further they have been convicted u/s 337/34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the present criminal revision petition in view of the fact that the learned appellate court had modified the sentence and had directed that the petitioners be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below with the condition to maintain peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Ms. Priya Shrestha, has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made.
5. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed as not pressed .
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
8. Let the lower court records be send back to the learned court below.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through E-mail/Fax.
Saurav/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present criminal revision petition is pressed or not given the modification of sentence by the appellate court and release under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Nagina Rabidas 2 Moti Rabidas 3 Jitan Rabidas 4 Somar Rabidas
State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
