Disposed

Ashok Chandra Bhakat v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024Cr.Rev./1557/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under IPC Sections 420, 468 and 471 for producing forged bills to avail LTC advance was upheld on appeal; this revision sought only sentence modification. Following orders passed in analogous Hindustan Copper Limited employee cases, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs.30,000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone with Rs.30,000 fine, depositable within four months; failing which original sentence to be served.

Ashok Chandra Bhakat Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 1557 of 2015

¶3

Ashok Chandra Bhakat @ Ashok Chandra Bhagat, son of Jagdish Chandra Bhakat, Resident of Village – Upper Bandha, P.O.- Surda, P.S.- Musabani, District – East Singhbhum … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Hindustan Copper Limited, through its General Manager, ICC, Moubhandar, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S.Ghatsila (Pin Code – 832103) … … Opp. Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate ---

¶9

15 /19.09.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶10

2. This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:

¶11

“That this criminal revision application is being filed to set aside the judgment dated 26.03.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2003 by learned Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Judicial CommissionerXVII, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder she has been pleased to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi-cumSpl. Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years under Section 471 as also the order of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2003, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi-cum-Special Magistrate, C.B.I. in R.C. Case No.08A/89(E) (T.R. No.16/03)”

¶12

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was instituted against altogether 14 employees of Hindustan Copper Limited against whom there were allegations regarding illegally availing LTC claim. The petitioner is one of them. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner produced forged bills for availing LTC advance of Rs.9,600/- during the month of December, 1988 and January, 1989.

¶13

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case was admitted only on the point of sentence. For the purposes of modification of sentence, the learned counsel has referred to order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Cr. Rev. No.1464 of 2015 with analogous cases relating to similar allegation of the employees of Hindustan Copper Limited and submitted that in the said cases, the sentence has

¶14

been confined to the period undergone with fine of Rs.30,000/- for each person.

¶15

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for 5 months 18 days as per the records of this case and a few days must have been taken for the purposes of furnishing the bail bond after communication of order by this Court. He submits that in the cases, which have been disposed of, the various petitioners had remained in custody for few days less than 6 months. He has further submitted that the present age of the petitioner is about 69 years and in those cases which were disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024, one of the petitioners was 67 years of age. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He has further submitted that he has got no instruction as to whether the petitioner was dismissed from service or not, but once there is conviction, there is no question of the petitioner continuing in service. The petitioner has faced the criminal case since 1989. The F.I.R. was instituted on 27.06.1989. The learned counsel submits that similar order may be passed in this case.

¶16

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute that as many as four cases having almost similar allegations were disposed of on 11.09.2024. She has no serious objection, if the sentence of the petitioner is modified in the same terms.

¶17

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has faced the rigor of the criminal case since the year 1989 and about 35 years have already elapsed. The trial was concluded after 13 years. The petitioner is a senior citizen at present and he is in the advanced stage of his life. As per the records, the petitioner has not been convicted in any other criminal case. No minimum sentence has been prescribed under the sections in which the petitioner has been convicted. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of the petitioner is fit to be modified and fine amount be imposed.

¶18

¶19

8. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under each of the sections for which the petitioner has been convicted i.e. Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody with fine of Rs.30,000/to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgement to the trial court.

¶20

9. In case the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioner would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. It is further directed that in case of non-deposit of the fine amount, the learned trial court shall immediately take all steps so that the petitioner serves the sentence.

¶21

10. This criminal revision is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the sentence.

¶22

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶23

12. Let the trial court records be immediately sent to the concerned court.

¶24

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Saurav/-

¶27

Ashok Chandra Bhakat v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Chandra Bhakat v. The 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

Pradeep Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Kumar Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Binod Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kalyan Kumar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand