Partly allowed

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./341/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Jharkhand sustained the conviction of the petitioner but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, discharging him from further liability to undergo simple imprisonment, while also releasing him from his bail bond. The case involved offences under IPC 406 and 420 where the incident occurred in 1998.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is sentenced to undergo the period already undergone, discharged from liability of his bail bond, and the conviction is sustained.

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 341 of 2009

¶3

Hassan Imam @ Md. Hassan Imam ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶5

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

¶6

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl. PP -------- 11/ 03.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2005, passed by learned VI^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2003/ 7 of 2004, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2003 in G.R. No. 51 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 364 of 2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Hazaribagh, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo SI for three years under Section 420 of the IPC, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently, has been affirmed.

¶8

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant, Md. Muslim Lalkar filed a complaint case before the learned C.J.M, Hazaribag wherein he stated that he was the owner of Trekker bearing Registration No. BHM 438 of 1979 and used it for commercial purposes. The accused-petitioner wanted to grab the trekker from the complainant, therefore he proposed the

¶9

¶10

complainant to sell his trekker and on 15.10.1981 the complainant sold the trekker for Rs. 63,001/- and to this effect a deed was executed in respect of the sale. The complainant handed over all the documents relating to trekker to the accused-petitioner and they made an agreement that all the taxes accruing from the trekker shall be paid by accused-petitioner right from 15.10.81 and he alone shall be accountable for the criminal and civil liabilities arising out of trekker. Further, the complainant was arrested on the strength of warrant of arrest issued by the District Certificate Officer for allegedly making default on payment of road tax from 1.04.1982 to 30.09.1992 which was to the tune of Rs. 72268.18 and he was sent to jail in civil prison on 05.09.1997 and was released only after making part payment of Rs. 29,000/-. After release from jail the complainant asked the accused-petitioner to pay the taxes but he denied to make any such payment. The complainant further stated that the accused-petitioner has committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC and having received the trekker under agreement to pay taxes misappropriated the amount which is also an offence punishable u/s 406 IPC.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this incident is of the year 1998 and he confines his argument on the question of sentence as the petitioner remained in custody for about 206 days. He further submits that now the petitioner is aged about 66 years and during entire period of bail, he never misused

¶12

¶13

the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶14

5. 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.

¶15

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 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.

¶16

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1998 and 24 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. Further, petitioner remained in custody for about 206 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶17

8. 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 that 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

¶18

¶19

undergo for the period already undergone.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

concerned forthwith.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

Pramanik/

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam 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

Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendar Kandu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Most.Sobrani And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Badri Prasad Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Nag 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

Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendar Kandu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Most.Sobrani And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Badri Prasad Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jabbar  Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Nag Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand