Petitioner challenged conviction and sentence in a criminal revision. Conviction upheld. Sentence altered as petitioner had already served term and been released.
Conviction confirmed. Sentence remanded to lower court record as petitioner had already completed sentence and been discharged from bail.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 385 of 2004 Binay Kumar Singh ….. Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
11/ 25.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has already undergone the period of sentence of three months, passed by the learned trial court.
During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a memo before this Court being memo No.316 dated 29.08.2004 issued by the Office Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Rajmahal, taken on record, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has already completed sentence of three months on 28.08.2004 and released thereafter. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case.
3. The learned APP supports the aforesaid contention and factum of jail custody of the petitioner.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the Memo No.316 dated 29.08.2004 nothing remains to be decided on the question of sentence. So far as the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is
2
concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to the personal rivalry with the informant.
5. However, keeping in mind the limited scope of revision jurisdiction I refrain myself from interfering 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 confirmed. On the question of sentence, no specific order is required as the petitioner has already completed the sentence and has been discharged from the bail bonds.
6. With the aforesaid discussions, this revision
application is disposed of.
7. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can modify sentence on grounds of quashing criminal trial.
BINAY KUMAR SINGH
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
SANAT KUMAR AWASTHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court