Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./515/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under sections 467, 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC. However, considering the age of the petitioner and the passage of time, the court modified the sentence to one already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period already undergone with payment of fine Rs.10,000/- within four months; petitioner discharged from bail liability subject to fine payment.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.515 of 2007

¶2

¶3

Ashok Kumar Sharma ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶5

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. S.K. Srivastav, A.P.P.

¶6

06/01.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1999, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.1999 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 1784 of 1993, corresponding to T.R. No. 277 of 1999, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for each offence. However, the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶8

3. The prosecution case, as per report of the informant, the then Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Jamshedpur Branch, Jamshedpur dated 09.09.1993 in brief is that the bank has been defrauded, by presenting forged demand drafts, for total sum of Rs. 1, 68,000/- through both saving account no. 27998 and LL50/17104 during the period of 18.09.1992 to 15.03.1993 and there was further attempt to defraud the bank by Rs. 80,000/- on 04.09.1993, which could be foiled due to extreme alertness and vigil by the Branch operating staff. 4. At the outset, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. He further submits that the amount which was defrauded is also adjusted from the savings account of the petitioner. The Petitioner has also remained in custody for

¶9

-2-

¶10

about 30 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 1993 and the petitioner is now an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶11

5. 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.

¶12

6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶13

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993 and 29 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Now the petitioner is aged about 63 years. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity and he also remained in custody for 30 days.

¶14

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

¶15

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below is hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner- Ashok Kumar Sharma is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶16

-3-

¶17

10. The sole petitioner- Ashok Kumar Sharma shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by appellate court.

¶18

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition.

¶19

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

¶20

13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., East Singbhum at Jamshedpur and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶21

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

¶22

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶23

sm/

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma 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

Vijay Prasad Soni Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Ishraful Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Pranab Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

John Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi Bijua Devi 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

Vijay Prasad Soni  Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta  Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Ishraful Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Pranab Paul Vs State of Jharkhand

John Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi  Bijua Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vijay Prasad Soni Vijay Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Prasad Mehta Baleshwar Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand

Bijawa Devi Bijua Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.