Partly allowed

Md.Kalam And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./1007/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction for forest offence but modified the sentence from simple imprisonment to payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, citing the 18-year lapse and pre-trial custody suffered by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified: petitioners sentenced to undergo period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within four months.

Md.Kalam And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1007 of 2006

¶2

¶3

Md. Kalam

¶4

Kishori Prasad

¶5

Amar Kumar

¶6

Rupesh Kumar

¶7

..… Petitioners

Versus

State of Jharkhand

….. Opp. Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Khooshbu Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bishambhar Shashtri, A.P.P.

¶14

05/17.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. Notice was issued to the petitioner in compliance of the direction of this court contained in Criminal Revision No. 1007 of 2006 and as per service report, Petitioner No. 4 has died.

¶16

3. In view of the above fact, the instant criminal revision stands abated against Petitioner No. 4.

¶17

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

5. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2006, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order dated 21.02.2006, passed by the C.J.M., Latehar in C.F. Case No. 139 of 2004, corresponding to T.R. No. 367 of 2006, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶19

6. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.11.2004, the complainant Range Officer, Forester and Forest Guards, during night patrolling in Betla Forest, on receipt of secret information, apprehended the petitioners, occupants of a Maruti Van and confiscated 39 pieces of allegedly stolen Sagwan wood from the said Van. After formal report, cognizance has been taken and later on charge has been framed on 08.2.2005 for the offence under Section 51 of

¶20

-2-

¶21

the Wild Life Protection Act and Sections 26/42 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

7. At the outset, Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not habitual offenders. Petitioner No.1 remained in custody for about 95 days and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 for about 120 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2004 and the petitioners are now middle aged persons and sending them back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper their entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶23

8. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶24

9. After going through the impugned judgments, including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶25

10. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2004 and 18 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. It is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity and Petitioner No.1 remained in custody for about 95 days and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 for about120 days.

¶26

11. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the

¶27

-3-

¶28

petitioners/convicts 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 petitioners- Md. Kalam, Kishori Prasad, Amar Kumar are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each.

¶29

13. The petitioners- Md. Kalam, Kishori Prasad, Amar Kumar shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- each within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Latehar, failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by appellate court.

¶30

14. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.

¶31

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

¶32

16. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Latehar and also to the petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶33

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

¶34

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶35

sm/

Md.Kalam And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Kalam And Ors. 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 Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Human Resources Department

Dani Devi Vs The Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Bikram Singh Vs Forest

Bablu Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhagwan Das Sonar Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ramani And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand