Partly allowed

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./333/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction for attempting to commit robbery under Section 385 IPC but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 20,000 in lieu of further imprisonment, considering the time elapsed and custody served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to undergo period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000; petitioner discharged from bail liability.

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 333 of 2009

¶3

Mhd. Jamailludhin Ansari @ Jamil Ansari @ Md. Jamal Uddin Ansari ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP --------

¶8

05/ 18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2009, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C.) Khunti, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 204 of 2005, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2005, in G.R. No. 98 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 202 of 2005, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Khunti, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is of the year 2003 and he confines his argument on the question of sentence as the petitioner remained in custody for about 53 days. He further submits that now the petitioner is middle aged person and during entire period of bail, he never misused the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below, as such, the conviction cannot be set aside. 5. 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 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

¶12

¶13

upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby sustained.

¶14

6. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2003 and 19 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. Further, petitioner is now middle aged person and also remained in custody for about 53 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶15

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the sentence in lieu of fine.

¶16

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 subject to payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. The amount shall be deposited before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Khunti within four months from today, failing which the petitioner will serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

11. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Khunti and the petitioner through officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶20

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

¶21

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶22

Pramanik/

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans 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

MD Hanifuddin Alias Hanif Ansari Alias Hanifuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchu Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sk.Shahid Ali And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Charan Tudu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.