Partly allowed

Shankar Sawasi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Nov 2022Cr.Rev./877/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, the High Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. The court held that sending the convict back to jail served no purpose after 17 years of litigation and modified the sentence to the period already undergone, discharging the petitioner from bail liabilities.

What did the court decide?

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

Shankar Sawasi Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 877 of 2007

Shankar Sawansi

….. …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

….. ….Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. V.K. Tiwary, Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. M. K. Mishra, APP

¶12

07/07.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2007; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class. Porhat at Chaibasa, corresponding to T.R. No. 66/07 in connection C/3 Case No.26/05; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 47(a) of the Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for One months; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for modifying the sentence for the period already undergone as the case is of the year 2005 and the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 17 years and he also remained in custody for about 52 days. As such, at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited 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

¶15

¶16

judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2005 and about 17 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 17 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 52 days.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶24

Fahim/-

Shankar Sawasi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Sawasi 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

Govind Lohar Vs State of Jharkhand

Madhukar Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Jai Raj Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio

Dinesh Prasad Sahu Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Karamu Jama Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Jhaksu Singh 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

Govind Lohar Vs State of Jharkhand

Madhukar Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Jai Raj Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigatio

Dinesh Prasad Sahu  Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Karamu Jama Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Jhaksu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Sahu Dineshwar Prasad Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand