Partly allowed

Md. Haidar Ali v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC8 Feb 2016CR. REV./808/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under the Arms Act, the High Court found no error in the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone. The petitioner was directed to deposit the fine within eight weeks to avoid re-imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the fine.

Md. Haidar Ali Vs The State Of Bihar — Patna HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.808 of 2015

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SAHARSA =========================================================== 1. Md. Haidar Ali Son of Md. Rasl @ Md. Sulam RAsul Resident of MohallaIslamia Chowk, Gangjala, P.S. & District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Umesha Nand Pandit, APP

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-02-2016

¶5

The Petitioner seeks revision of the judgment of conviction dated 22.6.2015 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2013, by which he has upheld the conviction of the Petitioner under the provisions of arms Act and maintained the sentence of 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/u/s.25(1-B)a of Arms Act, in default of which S.I. for three months and also 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/ u/s.26(i) of Arms Act, in default of which S.I. for three months, by judgment dated 28.1.2013 passed by the court of Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Saharsa in Saharsa Sadar P.S. case No.585 of 2009 (G.R. No.2009 of 2009).

¶6

Having perused the impugned judgment, I do not find

¶7

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.808 of 2015 dt.08-02-2016

¶8

2/2

¶9

any reason for interference. However, considering the period of custody of the Petitioner, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him. However, he is required to deposit the fine as directed by the Court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which he shall be sentenced to imprisonment as directed by the court below.

¶10

With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the revision application stands dismissed.

¶11

(Anjana Prakash, J)

¶12

Narendra/-

¶13

U T

Md. Haidar Ali v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Haidar Ali v. The State Of Bihar

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

Raja Babu Bhagat @ Raja Babu @ Raja Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Rajbansi Yadav @ Rajbansi Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhiraj Kumar Pathak @ Dhiraj Pathak @ Dhiraj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Pradyuman Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar Upadhyay @ Ritesh Upadhyay @ Ritesh Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar