Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./891/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction under the MMDR Act but modified the sentence. The court substituted the term of imprisonment with a fine, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 within four months.

What did the court decide?

The reduction of the sentence of simple imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 10,000 payable within four months, failing which the original sentence of imprisonment shall take effect.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.891 of 2011

¶2

¶3

Santosh Kumar ..… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.

¶7

10/19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2011, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2011, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 1496 of 2003, corresponding to T.R.No. 187 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 21 of MMDR Act and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was directed to undergo further S.I. for three months.

¶9

3. The prosecution case, as per the F.I.R., in brief is that the informant, who was a Mining Inspector, is that on 07.06.2003, at about 8.20 a.m. while the informant was going towards Chirkunda, he found a truck bearing no. BRR-9632 loaded with 9 M.T. fire clay standing in front of salon. The informant seized the truck and handed over to the police along with the written complaint.

¶10

4. At the outset, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and the Petitioner remained in custody for about 23 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2003 and the petitioner is now an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶11

-2-

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court 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 findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶13

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2003 and about twenty years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity and he also remained in custody for about 23 days.

¶14

8. 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. 9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below 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/-.

¶15

10. The petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four months from today before the court below the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by appellate court.

¶16

-3-

¶17

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

¶18

12. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of. 13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below, the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dhanbad and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶19

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

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

sm/

Santosh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjit Singh Pappu 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari  Jamil Ansari  Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjit Singh  Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

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

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand