Partly allowed

Jamuna Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./1032/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of two criminal revisions challenging convictions for theft of electricity. The court upheld the convictions but modified the sentences to fines after considering the time elapsed and prior custody.

What did the court decide?

The sentences for theft and illegal electricity usage were modified to a fine of Rs. 1,000 for Jamuna Sao and Rs. 1,500 for Laxman Singh to be paid in four months, otherwise rest of the sentence must

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1032 of 2003

¶3

Jamuna Sao ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶6

With

¶7

Cr. Revision No. 1134 of 2003

¶8

Laxman Singh ….. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State :Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP (In Cr.Rev.1032/2003) Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP (In Cr.Rev.1134/2003)

¶15

¶16

05/ 11.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. Since both these revision applications arises out of common judgment; as such, both are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶18

3. Both the applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No.113/2000; whereby the appeal filed by the respective petitioner have been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 07.08.2000 , passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 3036 of 1993, whereby the respective petitioner of both these applications were convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39/44 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment on each Section, has been sustained.

¶19

¶20

4. The prosecution case has been initiated on the basis of written information dated 18.08.1993 of the informant, Vishnudeo Paswan before the Katras Police Station. In Katras Chaitudih Colliery a High Tension Power line has been connected from substation of Yule Pit Mine Colliery workshop of 550 volt and the said power line intercepted Chhatabad No.5 basti. It is stated that due to fault of the power of the overhead line the informant has inspected the same and found that some resident of Chhatabad No.5 have tapped from the High Tension line and were consuming power illegally. It is stated that the aforesaid action of the villagers may damage the main transformer and there is apprehension of serious accident. It is alleged that during checking it has transpired that the petitioner Laxman Singh, one of the resident of the basti illegally fixed a wooden board on the northern wall and the board fitted with ten fuse point and supplied energy to Jamuna Sao and others and as such he committed theft of electric energy and accordingly he made a prayer for immediate search and seizure. It is presumed by the informant that Laxman Singh illegally obtained connection and by affixing a board supplying power to Jamuna Sao and others by theft of energy since last seven days and expected for recovery of the fitting by immediate search.

¶21

That on the basis of the aforementioned written report,

¶22

Katras Police registered the case against the respective

¶23

¶24

petitioners.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner-Jamuna Sao (in Cr. Rev. No.1032/2003) remained in custody for about 90 days and petitioner-Laxman Singh (in Cr. Rev. No.1134/2003) remained in custody for about 57 days and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail; as such, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶26

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

¶27

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the scope of 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 is, hereby sustained.

¶28

8. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993 and 28 years have elapsed and the petitioners must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. Further, the petitioner-Jamuna Sao

¶29

¶30

(in Cr. Rev. No.1032/2003) remained in custody for 90 days and petitioner-Laxman Singh (in Cr. Rev. No.1134/2003) remained in custody for 57 days and during entire period of bail they never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental depravity.

¶31

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

¶32

10. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ for petitioner-Jamuna Sao and fine of Rs.1,500/- for the petitionerLaxman Singh.

¶33

11. It is made clear that petitioner Jamuna Sao shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.1,000/- and petitioner-Laxman Singh shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.1,500/- within a period of 4 months from today before the court below; failing which they shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶34

12. With the aforesaid observation, direction and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶35

¶36

13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of

¶37

their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶38

14. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the respective petitioners through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶39

15. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

¶40

concerned forthwith.

¶41

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶42

Pramanik/

Jamuna Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Arun Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar  Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad  Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.