Partly allowed

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./781/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application challenging convictions for cheating and criminal breach of trust, the single judge sustained the conviction but modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 5000/- due to the petitioner's advanced age and the long elapsed time, releasing him from bail liability upon payment.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment was modified to a fine of Rs. 5000/- payable within 3 months; imprisonment to attach in default. Petitioner discharged from bail liability.

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2004

¶4

¶5

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar ..… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Chhotanagpur Adivasi Co-operative Vegitable, Marketing Federation Ltd. (Vegfed) Bharatpuri, Purulia Road, Ranchi. ..... Opposite Parties ---------

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, APP ---------

¶11

05/Dated: 11^th April, 2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. Though the notice was issued on the last occasion, however, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate submits that he will assist the court on the behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

3. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. C-III 128/99; whereby the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 403/420 and 424 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, three years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of rupees three thousand and one years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine it has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six

¶15

¶16

months and further against the judgment dated 20.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, VII Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2003, whereby the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 420 and 424 IPC and only the order of conviction under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, has been upheld.

¶17

3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint is that the petitioner has taken 215 bags of ‘Tamarind’ of 55 kg each bag on 05.01.1993. It was agreed that the petitioner will sell out the said tamarind and make payment of the sale to the complainant after deducting and taking two percent commission. It was also assured that the cost of tamarind will not be less than 4.50 p. the total cost of 215 bags of tamarind came to Rs.53,212.50. On 27.05.1998 the accused had written a letter in which time has been sought for finalization of the account. The complainant demanded orally and in writing the aforesaid dues from the accused several times, but the accused did not made payment and when the complainant and his staff demanded money, then the accused petitioner mis-behaved and abused them.

¶18

4. At the outset, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner has also undergone 28 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of

¶19

¶20

sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶21

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶22

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 finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld with modification by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶23

7. However, 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 petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. The petitioner also remained in custody for about 28 days and it is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-.

¶27

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.5000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶28

11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶29

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

¶30

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶31

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

¶32

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶33

Amardeep/

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Prasad Ramesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Arun Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bansi Lal Hazam Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand