JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.A. Niyazi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Rai, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. The petitioner has also challenged the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 256 of 2013/T.R. No. 478 of 2014 arising out of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2013 dated 17.03.2013 registered under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in the case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The period of detention during trial was directed to be set off from the punishment awarded to the petitioner.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, but there is no legal evidence to link the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel has also submitted that the informant and the petitioner were known to each other and it has come in evidence that the informant or his wife could not identify voice of the petitioner over phone during the alleged demand of ransom.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the IMEI number of the mobile recovered from the possession of the petitioner is different from the IMEI number in connection with which the call details were procured and exhibited before learned trial court. He further submitted that the last three digits of IMEI number of the recovered mobile was 821 and the call details of IMEI number having last three digits 820 was produced before the learned trial court. Learned counsel had also submitted that neither the SIM which was used in the alleged offence was registered in the name of the petitioner, nor the said SIM was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. However subsequently, the point regarding mismatch of the last digit in connection with IMEI number of the cell phone was given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the last digit in IMEI relates to the area and the discrepancy in the last digit of IMEI number may not be of much relevance in the present case.

7. Learned counsel has further submitted that otherwise also the material which has been used against the petitioner i.e. the call details, was the secondary evidence and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. -vs- P.K. Basheer reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473, the same was not admissible in evidence without proper certificate issued by the concerned authority and the authority, who had taken out the call details has also not been examined before the learned court below. The learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of inadmissible evidence. It was also submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period from 21.07.2003 to 08.08.2014 i.e. almost 13 months and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and accordingly some sympathetic view may be taken.

8. Upon being pointed out by this Court regarding the judgment passed by the Hon’ble