Partly allowed

Narendra Nath Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2022Cr.Rev./867/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC, the High Court of Jharkhand affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for embezzlement but commuted the sentence. Considering the long delay in adjudication, the petitioner's advanced age, and the time already served in custody, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and discharged the petitioner from bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability.

Narendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 867 of 2003

¶3

Narendra Nath Srivastava ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶4

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

¶5

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP -------- 10/ 06.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed

¶7

against the judgment dated 14.08.2003, passed by learned III^rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Giridih, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2001, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.06.2001 in G.R. No. 1646 of 1993/ T.R. No. 0088 of 2001, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Giridih, whereby the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Sections 409/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo SI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 469/120 (B) IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further simple imprisonment for 3 months, has been affirmed.

¶8

3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written report of the informant-Balbhadra Lal, Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Giridih before the officer-in-charge, Bengabad police station on 21.10.1993, stating therein that one Nirmal Kumar Das

¶9

¶10

was posted as Block Development Officer, Bengabad and the petitioner Narendra Nath Srivastava was posted as Nazir in the same block. It is further alleged that the Block Development Officer of the Block is the drawing authority of the State money and the same amount is drawn through Nazir and the Nazir is responsible for keeping day-to-day account of amount which is drawn and disbursed. It is further alleged that the Nazir was transferred from Bengabad Block office but the cash book was not made up-to-date and thereafter the petitioner completed the cash book up to 05/10/1993 and thereafter he informed that the Block Development Officer of the Block Sri Nirmal Kumar Das had received cash amount of Rs.6,25,000/- from him and had issued receipts for the same. The petitioner had produced photo copy of both the receipts issued by the Block Development Officer. It is further alleged that Nirmal Kumar Das, Block Development Officer and Sri Narendra Nath Srivastava, Block Nazir in collusion with each other had embezzled a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- of the Government money.

¶11

On the basis of the said report Bengabad Police Station registered an FIR against the petitioner and Nirmal Kumar Das, the Block Development Officer, Bengabad. After investigation, police has submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners; for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioner was found guilty

¶12

¶13

for the offences and he was convicted and his appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court.

¶14

4. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that as per the document which is available on record the money was taken by the petitioner. However, the same was returned to the Block Development Officer and that is the reason BDO was also made accused but the facts remains that the BDO has been declared absconder and the entire liability has been made on this petitioner and even otherwise, the petitioner remained in custody for about 6 months as such, some leniency may be granted to this petitioner by this Court.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner, however, he submits that the petitioner is not habitual offender and never misused the privilege of bail.

¶16

6. 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 petitioner 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.

¶17

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from

¶18

¶19

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. Further, petitioner remained in custody for about 173 days and now he is aged about 65 years and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶20

8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison.

¶21

9. 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

¶25

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

¶26

concerned forthwith.

¶27

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶28

Pramanik/

Narendra Nath Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Nath Srivastava 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Mahto Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Kiriti Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manindar Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Wakil Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Sharaf And Ors. 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

Sushil Mahto  Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Kiriti Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Manindar Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Wakil Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Sharaf And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushil Mahto Sushil Kr.Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand