Dismissed

Jaipal Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./792/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under Section 420 IPC, the court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone. The petitioner was acquitted of Section 406 IPC, and the court found the delay was sufficient to grant leniency.

What did the court decide?

The sentence is modified to the period already undergone. Petitioner is discharged from bail bonds.

Jaipal Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 792 of 2004

¶4

Jaipal Sahu ….. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ….. ….Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjeev Thakur,Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. Tapas Roy, APP

¶10

07/09.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC Vth, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2002; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Chaibasa, corresponding to G.R. Case No.183/01, T.R. No.987/2002; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two years; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 406 IPC. However, since there was no delivery of property, as such conviction under Section 420 IPC will not be attracted. He further submits that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. He further submits that the law is now well settled that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating.

¶13

Further, he made an alternative prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 2001 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 21 years and he also remained in custody for about 349 days. As such at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will hamper his entire family; as such

¶14

¶15

some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the courts below as the trial court has meticulously dealt with the evidence and came to the conclusion, but the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted under Section 406 he could not be convicted under Section 420 IPC is misconceived. In this regard he also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anadi Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand in criminal revision No.417 of 2001 reported in 2017(3) East. Cr. Cases 285 . As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶17

5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶18

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2001 and about 21 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 21 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 349 days.

¶19

7 . 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 for the period already undergone.

¶20

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶24

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.

¶25

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

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

Fahim/-

Jaipal Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Prasad Sahu Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Karamu Jama Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Shankar Sawasi Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Pariyat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Satrughan Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Shila Devi 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

Dinesh Prasad Sahu  Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Karamu Jama Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Shankar Sawasi Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Pariyat And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Satrughan Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Shila Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Sahu Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand