Partly allowed

Badri Prasad Verma v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./672/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction under the Railway Premises (U.P.) Act but modified the sentence due to the petitioner's advanced age and prolonged litigation, imposing a fine instead of further imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The sentence was modified: the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of imprisonment for the balance period. In case of default, the remaining sentence shall be served. Bail bonds were d

Badri Prasad Verma Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 672 of 2007

¶4

Badri Prasad Verma ….. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

------For the Petitioner :M. P. P. Chatterjee, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP

¶9

……… 06/03.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19.4.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2006; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Dhanbad, in R.P. case no.1/92, corresponding to T.R.No.400/06; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 3(a), R.P.(U.P) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶11

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 1992. He further submits that the petitioner has faced the rigors of litigation for last 30 years and he also remained in custody for about 67 days and at present the petitioner is aged about 76 years. As such at this stage sending him back to jail even for short period will hamper his health; as such some leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone or in lieu of fine.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶16

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1992 and about 30 years have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 30 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about 67 days and now the petitioner is aged about 76 years.

¶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 in lieu of fine.

¶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, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

¶19

9 . It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 months from today before the D.L.S.A., Dhanbad, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned courts below.

¶20

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

¶21

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶22

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶23

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

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

Fahim /-

Badri Prasad Verma v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Prasad Verma 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

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam 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

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

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam Vs State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Nag Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand